Abstract
Role-play simulations are often used in education, communication, and social science research as an instrument for experiential learning, skill development, and more recently for policy negotiation and problem-solving. RPS is a dynamic experiential activity in which multiple parties play specific roles to simulate real-life negotiations or problem-solving situations. RPS aims to create a safe forum where participants can discuss policy scenarios, make decisions, and strengthen two-way communication and collective problem-solving. This research contributes to recent research investigating the contribution of RPS as an educational tool to foster collaborative learning, empathy, and trust. We conducted two RPS workshops related to a payment for hydrological services program in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. We engaged stakeholders to discuss PHS program design alternatives and make decisions on the features that may be best for achieving PHS social and environmental goals. We use a mixed-methods approach, analyzing data from surveys, debriefings, and interviews. Our findings support using RPS as a tool to foster collaborative learning. The t test analysis shows statistically significant changes in participants’ viewpoints about their overall knowledge of PHS programs and improved understanding and empathy toward other stakeholders’ interests and concerns. Findings also support a positive shift in how participants perceived the role of PHS program administrators. We discuss the broader implications of these results and provide recommendations for future research on integrating a science-policy interface in the context of PHS programs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Urcuqui-Bustamante (2021) for a brief explanation of the concepts of payment for ecosystem services (PES) and payment for hydrological services (PHS) https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/history/show/38507.
See Mexico’s National Forestry Commission website for a detailed overview of the federal PHS program (http://www.conafor.gob.mx:8080/documentos/docs/5/2290Servicios%20Ambientales%20y%20Cambio%20Climático.pdf.).
A detailed explanation of the local matching funds PHS schemes in Mexico can be found in https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/126491/CNF-11_Servicios_Ambientales.pdf.
See Nava-López et al. (2018) for an institutional analysis of FIDECOAGUA.
See Paré & Fuentes (2018) for an overview of Xalapa’s PHS program and the role of SENDAS in administering the program.
Further details about Mexico’s federal PHS policy and PHS programs can be found in Alix-Garcia et al. (2009); Asbjornsen et al. (2017); Carter Berry et al. (2020); Jones et al. (2019, 2020); Kosoy et al. (2008); Muñoz-Piña et al. (2008); Nava-López et al. (2018); Paré & García Campos (2018); Rodriguez & Ávila-Foucat (2013); Shapiro-Garza (2020); Shapiro-Garza et al. (2020); Sims et al. (2014); Von Thaden et al. (2021).
References
Alix-Garcia J, De Janvry A, Sadoulet E, Torres JM (2009) Lessons learned from Mexico’s payment for environmental services program. Payment for environmental services in agricultural landscapes. Springer, Cham, pp 163–188
Andreotti F, Speelman EN, Van den Meersche K, Allinne C (2020) Combining participatory games and backcasting to support collective scenario evaluation: an action research approach for sustainable agroforestry landscape management. Sustain Sci 15(5):1383–1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00829-3
Angelstam P, Grodzynskyi M, Andersson K, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Khoroshev A, Kruhlov I, Naumov V (2013) Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sustainable use of ecosystem services: landscape concepts and Europe as laboratory. Ambio 42(2):129–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0368-0
Asbjornsen H, Mayer AS, Jones KW, Selfa T, Saenz L, Kolka RK, Halvorsen KE (2015) Assessing impacts of payments for watershed services on sustainability in coupled human and natural systems. Bioscience 65(6):579–591. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv051
Asbjornsen H, Manson RH, Scullion JJ, Holwerda F, Muñoz-Villers LE, Alvarado-Barrientos MS, Geissert D, Dawson TE, McDonnell JJ, Adrian Bruijnzeel L (2017) Interactions between payments for hydrologic services, landowner decisions, and ecohydrological consequences: synergies and disconnection in the cloud forest zone of central Veracruz Mexico. Ecol Soc 22(2):25–42. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09144-220225
Baird J, Plummer R, Haug C, Huitema D (2014) Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation. Glob Environ Chang 27(1):51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.019
Banerjee P, Wang H-H, Peterson MJ, Grant WE, Peterson TR (2019) Collaborative modeling and social learning in the context of joint forest management in east Sikkim India. Front Environ Sci 7(October):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00154
Barreteau O, Martine A, D’Aquino P, Sigrid A, Boissau S, Bousquet F, Daré W, Etienne M, Le Page C, Mathevet R, Trébuil G, Weber J (2003) Our companion modelling approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(2):1
Bela G, Peltola T, Young JC, Balázs B, Arpin I, Pataki G, Hauck J, Kelemen E, Kopperoinen L, Van Herzele A, Keune H, Hecker S, Suškevičs M, Roy HE, Itkonen P, Külvik M, László M, Basnou C, Pino J, Bonn A (2016) Learning and the transformative potential of citizen science. Conserv Biol J Soc Conserv Biol 30(5):990–999. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12762
Bellotti F, Berta R, De Gloria A (2010) Designing effective serious games: Opportunities and challenges for research. Int J Emerg Technol Learn 5(Special Issue2):22–35. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v5s3.1500
Braasch M, García-Barrios L, Cortina-Villar S, Huber-Sannwald E, Ramírez-Marcial N (2018) True GRASP: actors visualize and explore hidden limitations of an apparent win-win land management strategy in a MAB reserve. Environ Model Softw 105:153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.03.022
Brummel RF, Nelson KC, Souter SG, Jakes PJ, Williams DR (2010) Social learning in a policy-mandated collaboration: community wildfire protection planning in the eastern United States. J Environ Plan Manag 53(6):681–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.488090
Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books, Cambridge, England
Campo PC, Bousquet F, Villanueva TR (2010) Modelling with stakeholders within a development project. Environ Model Softw 25(11):1302–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.01.005
Carter Berry Z, Jones KW, Gomez Aguilar LR, Congalton RG, Holwerda F, Kolka R, Looker N, Lopez Ramirez SM, Manson R, Mayer A, Muñoz-Villers L, Ortiz Colin P, Romero-Uribe H, Saenz L, Von Thaden JJ, Vizcaíno Bravo MQ, Williams-Linera G, Asbjornsen H (2020) Evaluating ecosystem service trade-offs along a land-use intensification gradient in central Veracruz Mexico. Ecosyst Serv 45(September):101181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101181
Cheng M-T, Chen J-H, Chu S-J, Chen S-Y (2015) The use of serious games in science education: a review of selected empirical research from 2002 to 2013. J Comput Educ 2(3):353–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0039-9
Chew C, Lloyd GJ, and Knudsen E (2013) An interactive capacity building experience – an approach with serious games. In: 5th delft symposium on water capacity development. http://www.dhigroup.com/upload/publications/mikebasin/Chew_2013.pdf
Crampton A, Manwaring M (2014) Shaping the context, meaning, and effectiveness of negotiation simulations: teaching and training insights. Teach Negot Underst Impact of Role Play Simul 2014:2–10
Creswell JW, Poth C (2018) Qualitative inquiry and research design (Fourth). SAGE publications, New York
Daniels SE, Walker GB (1996) Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environ Impact Assess Rev 16:71–102
Daniels SE, Walker GB (2001) Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach. Praeger Publishers, Westport Connecticut
Desselle SP (2005) Construction, implementation, and analysis of summated rating attitude scales. Am J Pharm Educ. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj690597
Druckman D, Ebner N (2008) Onstage or behind the scenes? Relative learning benefits of simulation role-play and design. Simul Gaming 39(4):465–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878107311377
Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL (2011) Writing ethnographic fieldnotes, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice : an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65:663–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011
Farrié B, Jouven M, Launay F, Moreau JC, Moulin CH, Piquet M, Taverne M, Tchakérian E, Thénard V, Martin G (2015) Rangeland rummy - a board game to support adaptive management of rangeland-based livestock systems. J Environ Manag 147:236–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.08.018
Fujitani M, McFall A, Randler C, Arlinghaus R (2017) Participatory adaptive management leads to environmental learning outcomes extending beyond the sphere of science. Sci Adv 3(6):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602516
Gerlak AK, Heikkila T, Smolinski SL, Huitema D, Armitage D (2018) Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: a review of the scholarship. Policy Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9278-0
Gerlak AK, Heikkila T, Smolinski SL, Armitage D, Huitema D, Moore B (2019) It’s time to learn about learning: where should the environmental and natural resource governance field go next? Soc Nat Resour 32(9):1056–1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1597235
Gliem JA, and Gliem RR (2003) Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type scales. In: Midwest research-to-practice conference in adult, continuing, and community education, p 82–88
Gosen J, Washbush J (2004) A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simul Gaming 35(2):270–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878104263544
Grima N, Singh SJ, Smetschka B, Ringhofer L (2016) Payment for ecosystem services (PES) in latin America: analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosyst Serv 17:24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.010
Haug C, Huitema D, Wenzler I (2011) Learning through games? Evaluating the learning effect of a policy exercise on European climate policy. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78(6):968–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.12.001
Hayes T, Grillos T, Bremer LL, Murtinho F, Shapiro-Garza E (2019) Collective PES : more than the sum of individual incentives. Environ Sci Policy 102(September):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.010
Huitema D, Cornelisse C, Ottow B (2010) Is the jury still out? Toward greater insight in policy learning in participatory decision processes-the case of dutch citizens’ juries on water management in the rhine basin. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03260-150116
Irvine KN, Brien LO, Ravenscroft N, Cooper N, Everard M, Fazey I, Reed MS, Kenter JO (2016) Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values. Ecosyst Serv 21:184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.001
Ison R, Röling N, Watson D (2007) Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environ Sci Policy 10(6):499–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.008
Izquierdo-Tort S, Corbera E, Barceinas Cruz A, Naime J, Angélica Vázquez-Cisneros P, Carabias Lillo J, Castro-Tovar E, Ortiz Rosas F, Rubio N, Torres Knoop L, Dupras J (2021) Local responses to design changes in payments for ecosystem services in Chiapas Mexico. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101305
Jones K, Avila-Foucat S, Pischke EC, Salcone J, Torrez D, Selfa T, Halvorsen KE (2019) Exploring the connections between participation in and benefits from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz state, Mexico exploring the connections between participation in and benefits from payments for hydrological services programs in. Ecosyst Serv 35(November):32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.004
Jones K, Mayer A, Von Thaden J, Berry ZC, López-Ramírez S, Salcone J, Manson RH, Asbjornsen H (2020) Measuring the net benefits of payments for hydrological services programs in Mexico. Ecol Econ 175(October 2019):106666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106666
Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N, Ravenscroft N, Fazey I, Irvine KN, Reed MS, Christie M, Brady E, Bryce R, Church A, Cooper N, Davies A, Evely A, Everard M, Fish R, Fisher JA, Jobstvogt N, Molloy C, Williams S (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006
Koontz TM, Thomas CW (2006) What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Adm Rev 66(SUPPL. 1):111–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00671.x
Kosoy N, Corbera E, Brown K (2008) Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the lacandon rainforest Mexico. Geoforum 39(6):2073–2083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.08.007
Lalicic L, Weber-Sabil J (2019) Stakeholder engagement in sustainable tourism planning through serious gaming. Tour Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1648543
Leach WD, Weible CM, Vince SR, Siddiki SN, Calanni JC (2014) Fostering learning through collaboration: knowledge acquisition and belief change in marine aquaculture partnerships. J Public Adm Res Theory 24(3):591–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut011
Lumosi CK, Pahl-Wostl C, Scholz G (2019) Can ‘learning spaces’ shape transboundary management processes? Evaluating emergent social learning processes in the Zambezi basin. Environ Sci Policy 97(April):67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.005
Maronna RA, Martin RD, Yohai VJ, Salibián-Barrera M (2019) Robust statistics: theory and methods (with R), 2nd edn. Wiley, New Jersey
McFadgen B, Huitema D (2017) Stimulating learning through policy experimentation: a multi-case analysis of how design influences policy learning outcomes in experiments for climate adaptation. Water (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/w9090648
Merlet P, Van Hecken G, Rodriguez-Fabilena R (2018) Playing before paying? A PES simulation game for assessing power inequalities and motivations in the governance of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 34:218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.024
Moreau C, Barnaud C, Mathevet R (2019) Conciliate agriculture with landscape and biodiversity conservation: a role-playing game to explore trade-offs among ecosystem services through social learning. Sustainability (switzerland) 11(2):310–329. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020310
Munaretto S, Huitema D (2012) Adaptive comanagement in the venice lagoon? An analysis of current water and environmental management practices and prospects for change. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04772-170219
Muñoz-Piña C, Guevara A, Manuel J, Braña J (2008) Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol Econ 65:725–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.031
Muñoz-Piña C, Rivera M, Cisneros A, García H (2011) Retos de la focalización del programa de pago por los servicios ambientales en México. Rev Esp De Estud Agrosoc y Pesqu 228(11):87–113
Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U, Kosoy N, May PH (2010) Reconciling theory and practice : an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1202–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006
Nava-López M, Selfa TL, Cordoba D, Pischke EC, Torrez D, Ávila-Foucat S, Halvorsen KE, Maganda C (2018) Decentralizing payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: challenges and implications for long-term sustainability decentralizing payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: challenges and implications. Soc Nat Resour 31(12):1389–1399. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1463420
Newig J, Challies ED, Jager NW, Kochskaemper E, Adzersen A (2018) The environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance: a framework of causal mechanisms. Policy Stud J 46(2):269–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12209
Paré L, Fuentes T (2018) El comité de cuenca rel río Pixquiac: alternativas para la cogestión de una cuenca abastecedora. In: Paré L, García-Campos H (eds) Gestión para la defensa del agua y el territorio en Xalapa Veracruz, 1st edn. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, p 212
Paré L, García Campos H (2018) Gestión para la defensa del agua y el territorio en Xalapa, Veracruz, 1st edn. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, p 45
Perrotton A, Garine-wichatitsky MD, Valls-fox H, Page CL (2017) My cattle and your park: codesigning a role-playing game with rural communities to promote multistakeholder dialogue at the edge of protected. Ecol Soc 22(1):35–50
Pfaff A, Rodriguez LA, Shapiro-Garza E (2019) Collective local payments for ecosystem services : new local PES between groups, sanctions, and prior watershed trust in Mexico. Water Resour Econ 28(September 2017):100–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2019.01.002
Reed MS, Vella S, Challies E, de Vente J, Frewer L, Hohenwallner-Ries D, Huber T, Neumann RK, Oughton EA, Sidoli del Ceno J, van Delden H (2018) A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restor Ecol 26(April):S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541
Rodriguez K, Ávila-Foucat S (2013) Instrumentos económicos voluntarios para la conservación: una mirada a su surgimiento y evolución en México. Soc y Econ 25:75–106
Rumore D, Schenk T, Susskind L (2016) Role-play simulations for climate change adaptation education and engagement. Nat Clim Chang 6(8):745–750. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3084
Savic DA, Morley MS, Khoury M (2016) Serious gaming for water systems planning and management. Water (switzerland) 8(10):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8100456
Shapiro-Garza E (2020) An alternative theorization of payments for ecosystem services from Mexico: origins and influence. Dev Chang 51(1):196–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12552
Shapiro-Garza E, Mcelwee P, Hecken GV, Corbera E (2020) Beyond market logics: payments for ecosystem services as alternative development practices in the global South. Dev Chang 51(1):3–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12546
Sims KRE, Alix-Garcia JM, Shapiro-Garza E, Fine LR, Radeloff VC, Aronson G, Castillo S, Ramirez-Reyes C, Nez-Pagans PYA (2014) Improving environmental and social targeting through adaptive management in Mexico’s payments for hydrological services program. Conserv Biol 28(5):1151–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12318
Sønderskov KM, Dinesen PT (2016) Trusting the state, trusting each other? The effect of institutional trust on social trust. Polit Behav 38(1):179–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9322-8
Song C, Diessner NL, Ashcraft CM, Mo W (2021) Can science-informed, consensus-based stakeholder negotiations achieve optimal dam decision outcomes? Environ Dev 37(August 2020):100602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100602
Spector PE (1992) Summated rating scale construction : an introduction. SAGE university papers series. Sage Publications, New York
Sprain L (2016) Paradoxes of public participation in climate change governance. Good Soc 25(1):62–80. https://doi.org/10.5325/goodsociety.25.1.0062
Sprain L, Tompsett C, Ertor P, Asara V (2011) The ‘wickedness’ of participation in climate change adaptation governance. Inst Sustain Dev I:77–93
Sprinthall RC (2011) Basic statistical analysis, 9th edn. England, Pearson, London, p 45
Stokes LC, Selin NE (2016) The mercury game: evaluating a negotiation simulation that teaches students about science-policy interactions. J Environ Stud Sci 6(3):597–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0183-y
Susskind L (2014) Transforming high-stakes policy negotiations: understanding the impact of role-play simulations. Teaching negotiation: understanding the impact of role-play simulations. PON, Cambridge, pp 11–15
Susskind L, Ashcraft C (2010) Chapter 4. consensus building. Negotiate: reaching agreements over water. IUCN, Gland Switzerland, pp 59–77
Susskind L, Rumore D (2013) Collective climate adaptation: can games make a difference? Solut J 1:1–4
Susskind L, Rumore D, Hulet C, Field P (2015) Managing climate risks in coastal communities: strategies for engagement, readiness and adaptation. Anthem Press, London UK
Thompson JL, Forster CB, Werner C, Peterson TR (2010) Mediated modeling: using collaborative processes to integrate scientist and stakeholder knowledge about greenhouse gas emissions in an urban ecosystem. Soc Nat Resour 23(8):742–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802102032
Urcuqui-Bustamante AM (2021) Payment for ecosystem services. Encyclopedia. https://doi.org/10.37419/lr.v6.i1.8
Urcuqui-Bustamante AM, McGinnis I, McCarty T, Ashcraft CM, Atallah SS, Selfa TL (2021a) The Crystal River Payment for Hydrological Services Role-Play Negotiation Workshop Survey Instruments. Faculty Publications. 1237. https://scholars.unh.edu/faculty_pubs/1237
Urcuqui-Bustamante AM, Selfa TL, Hirsch P, Ashcraft CM (2021b) Uncovering stakeholder participation in payment for hydrological services (PHS) program decision making in Mexico and Colombia. Sustainability (switzerland) 13(15):1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158562
Urcuqui-Bustamante AM, Selfa TL, Ashcraft CM (2021c) The Crystal River Payment for Hydrological Services Role-Play Negotiation Post-Workshop Interview Protocol. Faculty Publications. 1238. https://scholars.unh.edu/faculty_pubs/1238
Urcuqui-Bustamante AM, Selfa TL, Ashcraft CM, Asbjornsen H, Jones KW, Manson RH, Mayer A (2022) Using Science-based Role-play Simulations to Inform Payment for Hydrological Services Program Design in Mexico. Environmental Science and Policy (Accepted for publication)
Vaske JJ (2008) Survey research and analysis: applications in parks. Venture Publishing, Recreation and Human Dimensions
Villamor GB, Palomo I, Santiago CAL, Oteros-Rozas E, Hill J (2014) Assessing stakeholders’ perceptions and values towards social-ecological systems using participatory methods. Ecol Process 3(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-014-0022-9
Vinke-de-Kruijf J, Pahl-Wostl C (2016) A multi-level perspective on learning about climate change adaptation through international cooperation. Environ Sci Policy 66:242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.004
Von Thaden J, Manson RH, Congalton RG, López-Barrera F, Jones KW (2021) Evaluating the environmental effectiveness of payments for hydrological services in Veracruz, México: A landscape approach. Land Use Policy 100(September 2019):105055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105055
Walker GB, Daniels SE (2019) Collaboration in environmental conflict management and decision-making: comparing best practices with insights from collaborative learning work. Front Commun 4(March):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00002
Wang K, Davies EGR (2015) A water resources simulation gaming model for the Invitational drought tournament. J Environ Manag 160:167–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.007
Wenzler I, Chartier D (1999) Why do we bother with games and simulations: an organizational learning perspective. Simul Gaming 30(3):375–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687819903000315
Wunder S (2015) Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 117:234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016
Wunder S, Brouwer R, Engel S, Muradian R, Pascual U, Pinto R (2018) From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat Sustain 1(March):145–150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank SENDAS, FIDECOAGUA, and INECOL for recruiting PHS stakeholders for the RPS workshops in Mexico, all the research participants who attended the RPS workshops, Theresa McCarty for assisting with the first RPS workshop and translating RPS materials, Dr. Alex Mayer at the University of Texas at El Paso for contributing to the RPS design, and all the RPS facilitators who assisted with the RPS workshops. We would also like to thank Dr. Jessica E. Leahy at the University of Maine for proofreading and providing feedback on this paper. This work was funded partially by the USA’s NSF Dynamics of Coupled Natural-Human Systems (CNH) program (grant No. 1313804), the University of New Hampshire’s (UNH) Collaborative Research Excellence (CoRE) Initiative, the Randolph Pack Institute at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and the Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration (PARCC) at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. An earlier version of this paper was developed through an interdisciplinary workshop supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Advancing scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes grant no. 2020-01551 project accession no. 1023309 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Funding
National Science Foundation, grant No. 1313804, Heidi Asbjornsen, University of New Hampshire, Randolph Pack Institute at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration (PARCC) at Syracuse University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AMUB contributed to conceptualization, methodology – design and conceptualization of RPS, analysis – qualitative and statistical analysis, and writing – original draft and editing. TLS contributed to conceptualization, methodology – design and conceptualization of RPS, writing – review and editing, and supervision – mentorship. KWJ contributed to methodology – design of RPS scenarios, analysis – statistical analysis, and writing – review and editing. CMA contributed to conceptualization, methodology – design and conceptualization of RPS, writing – review and editing, and supervision-mentorship. RHM contributed to writing – review and editing. KA contributed to writing – review and editing, and project administration.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Urcuqui-Bustamante, A.M., Selfa, T.L., Jones, K.W. et al. Learning impacts of policy games: investigating role-play simulations (RPS) for stakeholder engagement in payment for hydrological services program in Veracruz, Mexico. Socio Ecol Pract Res 4, 305–323 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-022-00131-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-022-00131-9