Abstract
One of the most important risks that threatens coastal cities is coastal flooding, and the effects of climate change will aggravate this risk. As a response, adaptation strategies need to be developed through the defense of the coastline and planning actions for example. We propose a “territory-responsive” participatory simulation (PS) method called “LittoSIM-GEN” to raise awareness among elected officials and agents of collectivities on different measures of coastal flooding prevention. This PS is carried out during workshops and is based on system modeling and participatory approach to establish links between the reference system and the simulation played. It lies between a descriptive and an abstract model as it does not describe a unique territory but is adapted to some extent to the territory on which it is applied. The analysis of 7 workshops conducted in two French regions questions: 1) the territorial adaptation of the PS through the deployment process, and the development of archetypes and their observability for the participants, 2) how the played experience is used to test strategies and to reconsider how risk management works in reality, and 3) how the attitudes of the participants may depend on the level of territorial adaptation of the PS.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this paper, to refer to the territory represented by the model, we use the term ‘reference system’ rather than the term ‘reality’.
- 2.
It can depend on the workshop, depending on the dynamics of the game. Some workshops have fewer rounds, others have more.
- 3.
A Department is an administrative division of the French territory within a Region.
- 4.
Project « Basse Sâane», in the municipalities of Quiberville and Sainte-Marguerite (Seine-Maritime).
References
IPCC: Cross-Chapter Paper 2: Cities and Settlements by the Sea. IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report, p. 42 (2021)
Haasnoot, M., Winter, G., Brown, S., Dawson, R.J., Ward, P.J., Eilander, D.: Long-term sea-level rise necessitates a commitment to adaptation: a first order assessment. Clim. Risk Manag. 34, 100355 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CRM.2021.100355
Oppenheimer, M., Glavovic, B.: Chapter 4: sea level rise and implications for low lying islands, coasts and communities. IPCC SR Ocean and Cryosphere. In: Pörtner, H.-O., et al. (eds.) IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Press, vol. Chapter 4, no. Final Draft, pp. 1–14 (2019). https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_Chapter4_SM.pdf. Accessed 23 March 2022
Meur-Ferec, C., et al.: Une méthode de suivi de la vulnérabilité systémique à l’érosion et la submersion marines. Développement durable Territ. 11(1), 24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.16731
Mamo, L.T., Dwyer, P.G., Coleman, M.A., Dengate, C., Kelaher, B.P.: Beyond coastal protection: a robust approach to enhance environmental and social outcomes of coastal adaptation. Ocean Coast. Manag. 217, 106007 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2021.106007
Bawedin, V.: L’acceptation de l’élément marin dans la gestion du trait de côte : une nouvelle gouvernance face au risque de submersion? Ann. Georgr. 692, 422–444 (2013). http://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-de-geographie-2013-4-page-422.htm
André, C., Boulet, D., Rey-Valette, H., Rulleau, B.: Protection by hard defence structures or relocation of assets exposed to coastal risks: contributions and drawbacks of cost-benefit analysis for long-term adaptation choices to climate change. Ocean Coast. Manag. 134, 173–182 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.10.003
Meur-Ferec, C., Lageat, Y., Hénaff, A.: La gestion des risques côtiers en France métropolitaine: évolution des doctrines, inertie des pratiques? Géorisques 4/Le litt, 57–67 (2013). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00430767/document
Mineo-Kleiner, L., Meur-Férec, C.: Relocaliser les enjeux exposés aux risques côtiers en France : points de vue des acteurs institutionnels. [VertigO] La Rev. électronique en Sci. l’environnement 16(2) (2016). https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.17656
Guéguen, A., Renard, M.: La faisabilité d’une relocalisation des biens et activités face aux risques littoraux à Lacanau. Sci. Eaux Territ. 23(2), 26 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3917/set.023.0026
CGEDD, IGA, and IGF. Recomposition spatiale des territoires littoraux, Rapp. Mission pour le Gouv. sur le Financ. la recomposition Spat. des Territ. littoraux dans le Context. du recul du Trait côte, p. 234 (2019)
Becu, N., Crookall, D.: Companion modelling and participatory simulation: a glimpse. The European Geosciences Union Conference (2020)
Klabbers, J.H.G.: The magic circle: principles of gaming and simulation. Magic Circ. Princ. Gaming Simul. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087903107
Becu, N., et al.: Participatory simulation to foster social learning on coastal flooding prevention. Environ. Model. Softw. 98, 1–11 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2017.09.003
Amalric, M., et al.: Sensibiliser au risque de submersion marine par le jeu ou faut-il qu’un jeu soit spatialement réaliste pour être efficace? Sci. du jeu 8 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4000/sdj.859
Voinov, A., Bousquet, F.: Modelling with stakeholders. Environ. Model. Softw. 25(11), 1268–1281 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007
Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R.: Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19(3), 387–420 (1989)
Becu, N.: Les courants d’influence et la pratique de la simulation participative : contours, design et contributions aux changements sociétaux et organisationnels dans les territoires, La Rochelle Université (2020). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02515352. Accessed 27 Jan 2021
Becu, N., et al.: Applying a descriptive participatory simulation to specific case studies: adaptation of LittoSIM coastal flooding management simulation. iEMSs, p. 10 (2020)
Laatabi, A., et al.: LittoSIM-GEN: a generic platform of coastal flooding management for participatory simulation. Environ. Model. Softw. 105319 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2022.105319
Caspar, R., Costa, S., Jakob, E.: Fronts froids et submersions de tempête dans le nord-ouest de la France: Le cas des inondations par la mer entre l’estuaire de la Seine et la baie de Somme. La Météorologie, no. 57, pp. 37–47 (2007). http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/handle/2042/18188. Accessed 13 Mar 2020
Sabatier, F., Suanez, S.: Evolution of the Rhône delta coast since the end of the 19th century. Cinématique du littoral du delta du Rhône depuis la fin du XIXe siècle. Géomorphologie Reli. Process. Environ. 9(4), 283–300 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3406/morfo.2003.1191
Le Page, C., et al.: Models for sharing representations. In: Étienne, M. (ed.) Companion Modelling, pp. 69–101. Springer, Dordrecht (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8557-0_4
Hassenforder, E., Pittock, J., Barreteau, O., Daniell, K.A., Ferrand, N.: The MEPPP framework: a framework for monitoring and evaluating participatory planning processes. Environ. Manage. 57(1), 79–96 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0599-5
Amalric, M.: Habiter l’environnement pour une géographie sociale environnementale: nature, paysage, risque. Volume 1 : positionnement & projet de recherche, Université de Bretagne Occidentale (2019). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02371925. Accessed 3 Mar 2020
Becu, N., et al.: Participatory simulation of coastal flooding: building social learning on prevention measures with decision-makers (2016). https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/iemssconference/2016/Stream-D/73, http://www.iemss.org/society/index.php/iemss-2016-proceedings
Barnett, J., et al.: From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol. Soc. Publ. 20(3) (2015). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07698-200305
Gerrits, L., Marks, P.: Complex bounded rationality in dyke construction. Path-dependency, lock-in in the emergence of the geometry of the Zeeland delta. Land Use Policy 25(3), 330–337 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.09.001
van Buuren, A., Ellen, G.J., Warner, J.F.: Path-dependency and policy learning in the dutch delta: toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands? Ecol. Soc. 21(4),(2016). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08765-210443
Lafond, L.-R.: Le réaménagement du littoral Haut-Normand à Criel-sur-Mer (Seine-Maritime). Rapp. Assoc. “RIVAGES,” p. 11 (1990)
Le Page, C.: Simulation multi-agent interactive: engager des populations locales dans la modélisation des socio-écosystèmes pour stimuler l’apprentissage social, p. 126 (2017)
Medema, W., Furber, A., Adamowski, J., Zhou, Q., Mayer, I.: Exploring the potential impact of serious games on social learning and stakeholder collaborations for transboundary watershed management of the St. Lawrence River Basin. Water 8(5), 175 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/w8050175
Delay, E., Becu, N.: Overcoming the final frontier of climate change in viticulture: exploring interactions between society and environment using Agent Based Modelling and Companion Modelling approaches. In: Sustainable Grape and Wine Production in the Context of Climate Change, no. December, pp. 204–212 (2017)
Barnaud, C., Van Paassen, A.: Equity, power games, and legitimacy: dilemmas of participatory natural resource management. Ecol. Soc. 18(2) (2013). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05459-180221
Daré, W., et al.: Difficultés de la participation en recherche-action : retour d’expériences de modélisation d’accompagnement en appui à l’aménagement du territoire au Sénégal et à la Réunion. [VertigO] La Rev. électronique en Sci. l’environnement 8(2) (2008). https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.5012
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Rationale for scores by variable. Table likely to evolve over the course of the research.
Variable | Score 0 | Score 1 | Score 2 | Score 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Articulation of the PS with the missions of the local partners | Marginal articulation with the actions of local actors on the territory. In the speech and in the facts, the partner does not reintegrate the workshop in its own actions | Secondary articulation to the action of peripheral actors of the territory in terms of flooding (academics), who are not in the decision-making process. Moreover, the local decision-makers are mobilized in the last stage of the project (invitation, mobilization of participants) | Partial articulation with the objectives of only some of the major actors in the territory, who are not decision-makers in matters of risk | Close articulation with the actions of local decision makers on the territory |
2. Legitimacy of the organizers (researchers and local partners) | No or weak legitimacy of the organizers | Limited legitimacy because the partners are not the main actors of coastal flooding risk management on the territory and are more identified on other missions (e.g. environmental preservation) | Partial legitimacy because the local partners are well identified in terms of risk management on the territory but the research team is much less so | Strong legitimacy because the partners have a high visibility in the territory on coastal issues and/or have missions directly related to the risk of coastal flooding in the territory |
3. Scenario of the workshop | No or weak integration in the workshop scenario of specific and structuring points of interest of the territory | Limited integration in the workshop scenario of specific and structuring points of interest of the territory | Partial integration of some specific and structuring points of interest of the territory. Some aspects have not been mentioned (e.g. erosion dune) | Strong integration of several specific and structuring points of interest of the territory (e.g. climate change effects, erosion, concomitance of climatic hazards) |
4. Group coherence | No coherence of the group because the participants come from very different management territories, without relationship | Limited coherence of the group as participants are from very different management territories but with some relationships | Partial consistency of the group because the participants are at different scales of flood management but they are immediately adjacent and belong to the same supra-inter-municipal territory (e.g. the Department) | Strong coherence of the group because all the participants belong to the same management scale, i.e. the scale adapted to decision making regarding the risk of coastal flooding on their territory (e.g. a delta, an intermunicipality, a watershed) |
5. Participation of strategic actors (mayors, general manager of services, heads of services and presidents of an inter-municipal cooperation structure) | No or low participation between 0% and 17% of total workshop participants | Strong participation, greater than or equal to 50% of total workshop participants | Partial participation between 33% and 50% excluded from the total workshop participants | Strong participation, greater than or equal to 50% of total workshop participants |
6. District shape | No or weak correspondence between the shape and boundaries of the municipalities played and the municipalities of the participants’ territory | Limited correspondence: the communes played do not correspond to real communes in the participants’ territory, but the shapes resemble each other, which allows them to identify themselves | Partial correspondence: the communes played correspond to communes in immediately adjacent management territories that the participants can recognize, so there are few differences | Strong correspondence: the municipalities played correspond to the municipalities of the participants’ management territories, so they can recognize them |
7. Landforms of the area (topography, bathymetry) | No or weak correspondence: the proposed representation does not correspond at all to the local specificities of the participants’ territory | Limited correspondence: the proposed representation omits a non-negligible part of the local specificities of the relief of the participants’ territory | Partial correspondence: the representation tends to be close to the ‘reality’ of the participants’ territory without representing all its landforms specificities | Strong correspondence between the relief represented in the game and the reality of the participants |
8. Demographic evolution | Not at all representative of the demographic dynamics of the participants’ territory | Poorly representative of the demographic dynamics of the participants’ territory | Partially representative of the demographic dynamics of the participants’ territory | Strongly representative of the demographic dynamics of the participants’ territory |
9. Modeling of the coastal physical processes | Null integration: the flooding event is not calibrated on the reference storm of the territory and the model does not consider other hazards than the coastal flooding | Limited integration: the flooding event is not calibrated on the reference storm of the territory but the model takes into account another hazard | Partial integration: the flooding event is calibrated on the reference storm of the territory and the model takes into account another hazard | Strong integration: the flooding event is calibrated on the reference storm of the territory and the model takes into account several hazards other than coastal flooding |
10. Local land use issues | Zero correspondence between the land use issues of the simulation and the real territory of the participants | Limited correspondence: the issues of the participants’ territory are present in the simulation but some local specificities are not taken into account and other issues are represented even though they are not present on the real territory | Good representation of the different types of issues but some local specificities of the real land use are not well highlighted in the simulation | Strong correspondence between the land use issues of the simulation and the participants’ real territory |
11. Possible management strategies | Zero correspondence between the possible management actions in the simulation and the reality | Limited correspondence: the possible management actions in the game correspond to reality, but some actions are missing and/or do not exist on the real territory | Partial correspondence: several possible management actions on the participants’ real territory are not taken into account in the simulation | Strong correspondence between the possible management actions in the simulation and the reality |
12. Economic system (cost of the actions, municipal budget and their evolution) | No match: the economic aspects of the simulation were not at all linked to elements of the real system and the evolution of the budgets of the communes over the course of the game appeared very unbalanced | Limited match: only some economic aspects of the simulation were linked to elements of the real system and the budgets of the communes evolved in an unbalanced way | Partial match: only some economic aspects of the simulation were linked to elements of the real system and the budgets of the communes evolved in a balanced way | Strong match: the economic aspects of the simulation are linked to elements of the real system and the budgets of the communes have evolved in a balanced way |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Monfort, A., Becu, N., Amalric, M. (2023). Feedback on a “Territory-Responsive” Participatory Simulation on Coastal Flooding Risk Applied to Two Case Studies in France. In: Harteveld, C., Sutherland, S., Troiano, G., Lukosch, H., Meijer, S. (eds) Simulation and Gaming for Social Impact. ISAGA 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13622. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37171-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37171-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-37170-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-37171-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)