UN GALA DI VENEZIA
A Gaming Simulation on the “expectations” of the Venitian
inhabitants ,
Arnaldo Cecchini & Alberto Recla
1. Rationale
This game falls into the category of analysis and participation
techniques. As is well-known, gaming simulations are one of the
tools available to analyse and investigate systems behaviours,
mainly socio-economic ones.
There are, in fact, various methods for representing a system, as
well as various possible interpretations. The simplest model, for
instance, represents a system according to one or more cause-
effect relations between its state variables; clearly, given the
initial conditions and the system transformation laws, we can
know the evolution of the system “in advance". This is a
deterministic prediction, which is generally good for systems
having a limited number of Variables and a “regularity” of
transformations.
The next step towards complexity brings us to represent systems
according to several casual relations, or according to synchronic
relation sheafs: the state A "Causes" B when transformations
1,2,3 are associated with it.
These types of models allow us to represent the system relations
by means of structures like trees or nets.
Known the structure, we can “reckon” the overall system evolution
according to the behaviour of a few variables. This type of model
is suitable to dynamic systems having neither points of “crisis”,
i.e. catastrophe points or singularities, nor unexpected events
which may affect their “tendencies”; here again, we are dealing
with ideal and rare occurences.
We need more sophisticated techniques to analyse unstable systems
wherein small variables” changes give rise to relevant
evolutions; in these cases, notably for systems organized into
space, besides simulation techniques based on the Catastrophe
Theory or Chaotic Systems, we have found it useful to adopt
techniques based on Cellular Automata.
However, the model we have adopted to represent the socio-
economic Venitian system is not only a “complex” one, but it is
also based on subsystems wherein the participants’ decisions and
actions are relevant; consequently, it will be difficult to
analyse its evolutions.
As is well-known, among the prediction techniques of systems
wherein the social agents have “free play", one of the most
useful, from a heuristic viewpoint (i.e. to make hypotheses on
the system evolution), although not so “powerful” (as it does not
formalize the whole system leaving out the part which depends on
the decisions taken by the participants) is that of gaming
Page 88
System Dynamics '91 Page 89
simulation, which may be defined as the simulation of the effects
of decisions taken through the assumption of roles based on rules
(notice that, for the Theory of Games, game means a set of rules).
Our choice is more useful inasmuch as our simulation aims to
analyse but also to design participation systems; that is why we
have chosen techniques which favour the representation of social
behaviours (decision making and strategies) more than the simple
algorithmic definition of the system objective parameters.
An algorithmic definition is, however, present both in the
relation matrix of the “social expectations” phase and in the
evaluation of the decisions’ effects.
2.AIMS
For these reasons, we have chosen to analyse the Venitian urban
system according to the socio-economic. and environmental
“expectations” of its inhabitants, both in general and as regards
possible urban intervention plans; that is, we have applied the
simulation to the internal physical, economic and social
subsystems on which the system is structured as well as to the
general frame wherein the analysis of an urban system lies. It is
a “real” world made of decision and consensus policies.
At first we have simulated the basic process structure (the
“expectations” model which is the game’s nucleus: we have called
it UN GALA). From this, passing through the METADEBRIEFING
(META), a “connector”, the model for the decision phase (called
STRADE) derives. The number of teams may be of about 70 (70 to
200 participants) in the UN GALA phase, 14 people in the META”
phase and 7 teams (7 to 20 people) in STRADE.
In Italian UN GALA means reception, feast and is the anagram of
LAGUNA, lagoon; META” means a half and STRADE stands for
STRATEGIE DECISIONALI, that is, decision strategies.
STRADE is a frame-game suitable to simulate urban and
environmental interventions, such as the plan to tranform the
Venitian lagoon into a lagoon park or the hypothesis of creating
an underwater train system to link the islands to the mainland.
3. UN GALA
UN GALA is based on the Venetian socio-economic system (insular
area); as this is a “complex” system,.so is the structure of the
roles assigned to the players: the participants are, in fact, 70
and they simulate as many “social protagonists" of the Venitian
life.
Their high number depends on the neecessity of having sufficient
information to "portrait" the main levels of social expectations
regarding possible economic, environmental and life quality
issues.
The players are divided according to common interest and goal
Page 90 System Dynamics '91
areas into the following groups:
ENVIRONMENT
HOUSING
CULTURE
EVERYDAY LIFE
SERVICES
TOURISM
Each group contains a number of “social agents” which, in our
game, stand for the players’ roles: this choice depends on the
social structure of the inhabitants and of the commuters working
in Venice.
All the participants have the same aim, which is to make the
highest number of events occur among those available in each
group, namely the personal events (fig. 1 shows the list of
groups and teams -fig. la- and an example of events -fig. ib)
The most “skilful” players will be able to build the consensus of
other players (belonging to the same group) around their personal
strategy, and, thanks to their ability to predict the system
dynamics, they will “maximize” their more cherished events.
Evidently, this is a negotiation and prediction game which
enables players to better represent their social position.
Thus the events (be they realized or not) affect the following
system general variables:
economics
environment
quality of life
3.1 Procedure
3.1.0 Group formation
The players sit around 7 tables, each according to the group
simulated. To each "group" the following materials are assigned:
1- the game board, a polygonal holder containing the game cards
and the event cards.
2- voting cards.
3- a die to simulate random events.
4- a monitoring board to assess the impact of the events on the
system, namely the economic, environmental and the quality of
life variables, within each group.
Finally, there is a general board (similar but bigger than the
System Dynamics '91 Page 91
game board) which monitors the groups’ global results.
The game cards, which equal the number of players, list all the
events of each group and are accompanied by a movable device
indicating the probability.
The events cards contain:
a) in front the group, the event number, the title, the
description and the inital probability;
b) on the back arrows of various type indicating the effects (+
or - 10% of the current probability) of the event (whether it
eccurs or not, see 2.3) on all the other group events.
The facilitator explains the simulation aim, objectives and rules
to the players.
3.1.1 Choice of events
Each participant chooses in turn, to play an event card (to a
maximum of 10 cards) so as to make the event occur or be
eliminated.
3.1.2 Events put into play
The players; in turn, put an event into play, according to the
following rules:
- rule 1: each objective must be played only once during a game.
- rule 2: each player must choose at least 4 events to be voted
(simulation of the consensus process) and no more
than 3 events to be drawn randomly (it simulates
the risk undergone by the player who forecasts an
unacceptable consensus level and accepts the “laws
of chance").
-rule 3: at the beginning of each game, every event has an
initial probability.
The event occurs when it overcomes or equals 100%;
it is eliminated when it is inferior to 10%.
In the first case the other events’ probabilities
change accordingly and the variables are affected
in conformity to the relation matrix implicit in
the game cards; if the events is eliminated the
changes and influences will be the opposite.
3.1.3 Voting
During this step each player has to submit the event chosen to
the other participants’consensus of his/her group which will be
expressed through the voting cards; each card is worth 5% or 10%
according to the player’s social or economic relevance; a vote in
favour increases the probabily, one against decreases it.
Page 92 System Dynamics '91
During this phase the following rules apply:
-rule 1: the new probability is obtained by summing the initial
probality and the voting power of the other players
-rule 2: if the events does not occur or is not eliminated, it
stays in game with the probability obtained during
the voting session.
3.1.4 Random occurence
Choosing this options we can submit the events whose probability
is over 50% to the “risk” of casting a die: if the values 1,3,5
eccur the event is not realized and its probability will diminish
of 10%, otherwise the events is considered as realized.
During this phase the following rules apply:
-rule 1: as mentioned above, each player may “risk” no more than
3 events per game. :
-rule 2: it is possible to play only events having a probability
over 50%.
3.1.5 Revision of game cards
When an event occurs or is eliminated, the game cards change the
probability of all the events “linked” to it (obviously, within
the same group) and the monitoring board is adjourned, according
to what the back of the cards indicate.
3.1.6 Final revision
Once the events run out, the game cards are adjourned according
to this device:
each probability indicator is moved to its nearest end: it will
be eliminated if its probability ranges between 10% and 50%, it
will occur (100%) if it is superior to 50%.
3.1.7 Election of the 7 leaders
Each group will elect its leader, i.e. the player with the
highest number of votes. To be candidate a player has to have 70%
of his/her “personal” events realized.
The ballot is secret; at a parity of votes the candidate having
realized the highest number of "personal" events is elected, if
there is still parity, the leader is chosen by lot.
If nobody has realized 70% of events, each player can apply for
election regardless of the quorum limit.
3.1.8 Final Debriefing
System Dynamics '91 Page 93
The facilitator hands each leader the various game cards and the
monitoring board and explains the aim of the other simulation
phases.
Finally, each leader opens the debate on:
- the analogies between the "real" system of social expectations
and the. process which during the game has led to the elimination
or realization of the group events.
~ the possible attitude of the group regarding the intervention.
4.META”
It may be defined as a meta-debriefing connecting the
participation to the decision phase. It consists of a meeting
between the leaders and a group of experts.
After having updated the general monitoring baord according to
the results of the group choices of the economic, environmental
and quality of life variables, each leader reports exhaustively
on the group game development.
At the same time the common expectations and conflicts arisen
about the suggested intervention will be examined. The. experts
will assess the results of the debate so as to indicate the
objectives to be played in the following phase.
5. STRADE
Now we shall deal with the third phase of our simulation, namely
with decision strategy (STRADE). On the one hand we shall analyse
the impact of an intervention on the Venitian socio-economic
system (as said above, we have started from two, i.e. the
hypothesis of transforming all the lagoon into a park and of
creating an underwater translagoon train system); “on the other,
the steps necessary to make them possible, possible meaning here
technically feasible, socially desirable and institutionally
realizable.
Considering the hypothesis of the lagoon park (PLAG), firstly, it
will be necessary to fix the assessment tools of the immediate
effects ar regards the following issues:
econo! _issse - direct and indirect costs of the intervention
(consider the problems of industrial and rural rubbish), running
costs; induced effects like employment, tourist flows, housing
renewal, area improvement, etc..
socio-political issue - provisional enactments, social power
relationships, political positions.
physical-enivronmental issues - technical characteristics and
range of the intervention, geophysical and weather issues,
ecosystem changes, etc..
These elements allow us to design a number of PLAG plans, divided
into economic, socio-political and environmental “packages”,
Page 94 System Dynamics '91
that is, a game structure wherein the simulation of the
intervention might be played.
The protagonists of the decision simulation could be grouped into
the following roles:
a) Traditional and tourist economic operators.
b) Innovative economic operators.
Both roles aim to maximalize their. own profits without extreme
reciprocal losses as well as a general as high as possible
profit. These are functional roles which develop throughout the
simulation.
They act mainly in the economic subsystem.
c) Local Authorities.
They are the representatives of local councils and will be
responsible for the decision and implementation of the plans.
Thus, their power varies according to the team components.
They take part in the debate about the plans,- intermediate among
the players, have a certain influence on the contract allocators,
acting mainly in the economic and environmental subsystems and
have to submit to a consesus assessment. This role is assigned.
d) Environmentalists.
Ecologic associations and movements, intellectuals and urban
planners exerting a pressure and a control on the other teams,
trying also to influence the Scientific Committee and Public
Opinion.
They act in the environmental and consensus subsystems. The role
is functional.
e) Polluted People.
They stand for the protagonists of the residential social
dynamics who try to obtain a good quality of life and
environment.
They act in the environmental and consensus subsystems. The role
is functional.
f) Contract allocators.
They try to influence the other teams and public opinion as
regards the intervention feasibility; within them there are:
#1) The Scientific Committee,
which acts as a link between the contract allocators and the
others, defends and promotes the plan, trying to protect somehow
its scientific dependance.
g) Planners and executors.
They are the final decisiomakers and responsible of the plan
implementation. At the beginning and during the game they present
System Dynamics '91 Page 95
the intervention “packages”.
There are other two pseudoroles, which do not directly intervene
* i : z ‘
in the dicision making, but may bear upon it:
h) Public Opinion, made of the seven leaders of the first phase.
i) Hidden Powers, modelled by a number of unforeseen events,
occurring randomly.
Page 96 System Dynamics '91
fig. la List of teams
TOURISM
1 Unauthorized boat-taxi drivers, 2 Boat-taxi drivers,
3 Gondoliers, 4 Stand holders and pedlars, 5 Craftsmen,
6 Shopkeepers, 7 Small hotel and boarding house owners,
8 Restaurant owners, 9 Bar and self-service restaurant owners,
10 Luxurious hotel owners, 11 Mainland hotel owners,
12 Conference and cultural tourism operators, 13 Tourist operators.
EVERYDAY LIFE
1 Car owners, 2 Retailers, 3 Snack-bar and restaurant owners,
4 Local wine bars, 5 Mothers, 6 Working women, 7 Old people,
8 Young people, 9 Consumers, 10 Boat owners.
SERVICES
1 Drop-outs and handicapped people, 2 Health and social-care workers,
3 Chronic invalids and senior citizen, 4 Women, 5 Islanders,
6 Public transport workers, 7 Commuters (work and study),
8 Educational service employed, 9 Educational services users,
10 Immigrates, 11 Civil servants, 12 Public administration users,
13 Local authorities, 14 Voluntary social-care associations,
15 Public transport agenecy, 16 Occasional transport users,
17 Local health authority.
HOUSING
1 Estate agencies, 2 Small householders, 3 Public housing sector,
4 Large estate owners, 5 Controlled rent tenants, 6 Owner occupiers,
7 Evicted people, 8 Market rent tenants, 9 Tenant associations,
10 Building companies, 11 Public housing tenants.
JOBS
1 Craftsmen, 2 Traditional sectors employed, 3 Hi-tec employed,
4 Tourist enterprisers, 5 Non tourist enterprisers,
6 Seasonal and occasional workers, 7 Trade unions, 8 Unemployed,
9 Researchers and technicians, 10 Professionals.
CULTURE
1 Students, 2 University researchers and professors,
3 Teachers, 4 Intellectuals and artists, 5 Cultural associations,
6 Theatre subscribers, 7 Occasional theatre goers,
8 Cultural events organizers.
ENVIRONMENT
1 Environmental associations, 2 Single issue associations,
3 Sporting assocciations, 4 Polluted people, 5 Rural polluters,
6 Industrial polluters, 7 Tourist polluters, 8 Health controllers,
9 Garbage removal agency.
System Dynamics '91 Page 97
Fig. 1b Example of a team’s objectives
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS + - TEAM 1
Objectives:
Al - lagoon flora and fauna protection
A2 - historical, artistic and architectural works of art
preservation
AS - tourist flow control
A4 - non admittance to the translagoon bridge for non residents
A5 - non admittance to the translagoon bridge for tourist coaches
AG - renewal and increase of public transports
A7 - limitation in chemical fertilizers and pesticides
A8 - grants to non polluting agriculture
ag - grants to traditional lagoon fish breeding
A1lO - canal excavations
Ali - water depuration sewage system (private pollution)
A1l2 - water depuration sewage system (industrial pollution)
A13 - lagoon fish hatchery renewal
Al4 -- reclaimed land flooding
A1lS - creation of a lagoon park
Al6 - tax on polluters and polluting substances
A1l7 - interventions against cultural pollution
Al8 - swell control
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0