SprintCity paper: Does serious gaming lead to better Transit Oriented Development in The Netherlands

More information: www.sprintcity.nl report: SprintCity@BUFTOD2012 sprintstad@deltametropool.nl

Article for BUFTOD2012

Does serious gaming lead to better ‘transit oriented development’ in The Netherlands?

Abstract: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) involves a complex interplay between actors, both public and private, operating on various levels of scale. Implementation of TOD in the Netherlands is hampered by several barriers. Knowledge transfer and shared vision building are possible ways of overcoming these barriers. For this to happen, actors involved in TOD need to learn how to transfer knowledge and build shared visions. This paper describes how a serious game (“SprintCity”) provides and environment in which policy learning can take place. It is shown that serious gaming does lead to learning effects, mostly associated with affective and communicative aspects of the serious game and the planning process it emulates. The paper argues that if a serious game is played in the right window of opportunity, it helps actors to learn how to overcome barriers to the implementation of TOD. Keywords: Transit oriented development, serious gaming, planning, implementation barriers, corridor, policy learning

Mirte van der Vliet (Balancia) mirte.van.der.vliet@balancia.com Jan Duffhues (Movares / University of Amsterdam) jan.duffhues@movares.nl Merten Nefs (Vereniging Deltametropool) merten.nefs@deltametropool.nl Transit Oriented Development has received a lot of attention in the Netherlands. Dutch planning since the 1980s is directed at a compact development around (transit) infrastructure. However this has not resulted in TODs in which development is done in an integrative way. Responsibilities and possibilities in and around station areas are scattered amongst a multitude of actors, which prevents TOD from being implemented. This paper will explore if serious gaming increases understanding of these barriers, thus creating a learning experience that actors will use in reality when trying to implement TOD. First, the concept of TOD will be explained in a Dutch context. In the second part, the concept of serious gaming will be linked to Kingdon’s stream model and TOD in the Netherlands. The third part delves deeper into the serious game “SprintCity”, explaining its mechanisms. Then the results will be described. A conclusion will be given, and some thoughts on how to move forward with TOD, serious gaming in general and SprintCity in particular.

1. Transport – land use dynamics Transit Oriented Development, or TOD, can be defined as “the integration of transport and land use development at railway stations” (Bertolini, Curtis et al. 2009). More specifically, it deals with “concentrating a mix of moderately dense and pedestrian-friendly developments around transit stations to promote transit riding, increased walk and bicycle travel and other alternatives to the use of private cars” (Cervero 2009).

TOD can be understood in terms of the Land-Use Feedback Cycle, as shown in figure 1 (Wegener and F端rst 1999), (Bertolini 2009). Land use defines the possible locations for people to conduct activities. people to conduct activities. These activities lead to mobility, because people need to travel from Figure 1: Land-Use Feedback Cycle one activity to the other. This influences the transportation network, the traffic that takes place on it and the way it and expands physically. The transportation network in turn provides accessibility, meaning that a certain number of people can reach a certain location within a certain amount of time.

This accessibility influences location choices of activities: locations with a high accessibility will attract other land uses than locations with a low accessibility. This results in changed land use, starting the cycle once again.

TOD concentrates land use around nodes in (rail) transit networks, so more activities will take place in station areas, increasing accessibility by transit.

In the Netherlands, TOD involves a complex interplay between public and private actors dealing with land use change, transportation network development and economic growth (see paragraph 3.1).

It touches multiple fields of knowledge, policy actors and decision-making levels (VROM-raad 2009). TOD initiatives often have to be developed through a complex process of agenda-setting and negotiations by constellations of administrative and political bodies, private developers and transport companies (Balz and Schrijnen 2009).

In the following scheme (figure 2), the multiplicity of actors involved in TOD is combined with the transport-land use feedback cycle: Figure 2: multi stake- and shareholders concerned with TOD

The institutional landscape in the Netherlands consists of a large number of public, semi-public and private actors. The public authorities have different responsibilities over transportation and infrastructure. The national government is responsible for the national railways (a semi-public company with the national government as its sole shareholder) and the national railway infrastructure (managed by an independent principal). Provincial governments and city-regions are responsible for the public transport services at the supra-regional and regional level. These services are publicly tendered to private transportation companies. They are also responsible for legally binding general visions on land use (‘structuurvisies’). Municipalities are responsible for more specific legally binding land use (zoning) plans.

Private actors are mostly land owners and developers, but also transport companies, retail chains, or large companies and institutions (schools, hospitals) looking for an accessible location.

It carries too far to go into legal or organizational details in this paper. For now it is sufficient to say that the number of actors and the complexity of relations between them cause a slowness to capitalise and recognise the potentials of TOD. (Tan 2009) To implement TOD, barriers need to be overcome (Bertolini, Curtis et al. 2009). These barriers are of legal, institutional, instrumental and political nature (VROM-raad 2009), (Tan 2009). For example, investments in the transportation network at a certain location are often waiting for investments in the station area of the same location and vice versa, because of separated finance streams (public Ù private, national railways Ù regional transport), different responsibilities (various levels of government), various legal positions (public Ù private).

To overcome political barriers, the willingness of public administrations to improve cooperation and collaboration with each other and other actors, either in a formal or informal way is needed. This should result in the construction of a shared vision for TOD, taking responsibility for this vision and carrying it out in a consistent manner. Knowledge exchange between actors on the perceived benefits of TOD and the interests involved is essential for this to happen. (UitvoeringsAlliantie Centrum- en knooppuntontwikkeling 2010).

Interdisciplinary structures of collaboration and knowledge exchange on TOD are complex and often ad hoc. It is not clear yet which instruments are best suited to facilitate them. Serious gaming is a possible instrument that helps realizing these interdisciplinary structures of collaboration and knowledge exchange, thus providing a way of overcoming the aforementioned barriers. Playing a serious game can help to increase knowledge and understanding on the implementation of TOD, thus moving up a step from acknowledging the flaws of the current situation, to looking for ways of changing it. This paper will show what serious game is, how it leads to learning effects for the policy actors on the subject of TOD, and how these learning effects can be used for policy change, thus bringing effective TOD a step closer.

2. Serious gaming, policy learning & Kingdon’s streams model 2.1 serious gaming Serious games are designed for the purpose of learning. They should be entertaining and serious at the same time, so that serious skills or knowledge can be acquired while one is having fun.

Moreover, by simulating reality, one can practice skills or implement learned lessons in a virtual, thus safe, environment. This enhances the learning process of the player (Susi, Johannesson et al.

2007).

With respect to the content of a complex problem, (computer-based) simulation can be used to enhance insight in the causal relations of the problem. With respect to the multi-actor complexity of

a problem, role-play can be used to clarify and structure the interactions between the actors at the same time. The strength of serious gaming lies within the possibility to combine computer-based simulation with role-play. In this way, the complexity concerning the content as well as complexity concerning human interactions can be clarified and supported within one single tool (Mayer 2009).

2.2 policy learning Serious games can be used to structure and clarify complex, multi-actor problems or developments.

This means a serious game can be a suitable instrument to support policy development concerning complex issues like TOD. “Learning is the mechanism for policy change”, according to (Michaels, Goucher et al. 2006). (May 1992) adds: “Experience from which lessons can be drawn is an important aspect of any form of learning discussed in the policy literature”. This experience can be gained during a real policy process or during the play of a serious ‘policy’ game. A role-play or interactive aspect is important in such serious games, as policy is always developed by groups though interaction and not by individuals alone. Moreover, for serious games to be suitable for policy learning, the content or input of the game has to be based on empirical data concerning the policy subject.

Policy learning can occur in two different forms according to (May 1992): instrumental policy learning or social policy learning. Instrumental policy learning entails learning about the effects and limitations of policy instruments, whether in relation to policy goals or not. Policy simulation exercises (PSEs) can be used to support instrumental policy learning.

Social policy learning focuses on the social construction of policy problems, policy goals or the scope of policy. According to (May 1992): “It [social policy learning] entails reaffirmation or revision of the dominant causal reasoning about policy problems, interventions, or objectives”, through critical reflection on one’s own perspective and the perspectives of others. In this way, social policy learning can lead to new social consensus. According to (Dionnet, Kuper et al. 2008) role-play games (RPGs) are suitable instruments to trigger social policy learning. The serious game SprintCity can be characterised as a RPG with features of a PSE, as the role-playing part of this game is better developed than the simulation.

With respect to TOD in the Netherlands, both forms of policy learning are important. As referred to in the introduction, in the Netherlands TOD involves a complex interplay between actors with different backgrounds and interests. Consensus about the goal or scope of TOD is crucial for a TODproject to succeed. In this respect, social policy learning is important, especially in the early stages of policy process concerning TOD. Instrumental policy learning is important in finding the most suitable and effective policy instruments to bring TOD into practice. This type of policy learning becomes of more relevance in later stages of the policy process.

Three different learning effects can be distinguished when looking at the possible learning effects of RPGs like SprintCity: cognitive learning effects, affective learning effects and communicative learning effects (Garris, Ahlers et al. 2002; Wouters, Van der Spek et al. 2009). Table 1 summarizes the main differences between the three learning effects.

Table 1: learning effects of RPGs

2.3 Kingdon’s streams model Learned lessons will only lead to change once they are implemented or used in reality. For policy this means that learned lessons need to be adopted in new or revised policies. ‘Kingdon’s streams model (Kingdon 1984) tells us that (new) policies can only be adopted if a ‘window of opportunity’ exists in the policy context (figure 3). There are three streams in the model, the participant stream, problem stream and solution stream. The participant stream consists of political and civil elites working for public administration services, concerned with decision-making and policy development. They are powerful actors and therefore crucial for the agenda setting and realization of policy. The problem stream consists of societal developments that need the attention of public administration services, to be handled or solved. Advocates of societal developments try to put these developments on the public agenda. Anyone can be such an advocate; citizens, pressure groups, civil servants etc. The solution stream consists of ideas about necessary or desired policies, usually advocated by experts, civil servants and pressure groups. Solutions are usually not ‘invented’ in the context of an already existing problem, but consist of certain policy demands of particular groups.

A window of opportunity occurs when the participant stream connects with the problem stream and the solution stream. In that case, relevant policy actors are convinced a certain problem has to be solved via the public administration and they have a certain solution or policy in mind.

A window of opportunity can occur by chance through changes in the participant stream (elections for example) or in the problem stream (crisis, natural disaster). They are not created by changes in the stream of solutions. However, it is possible that a ‘policy entrepreneur’ actively tries to connect the three streams and thus creates a window of opportunity. These policy entrepreneurs are actors, often form outside the formal positions of government, who introduce, translate, and help implement new ideas into public practice. They have to be very familiar with the concerning policy context to be able to succeed in their mission. A window of opportunity could close for several reasons: the policy problem is solved, the solutions fail to appear or key actors disappear (Bovens, 't Hart et al.

2001; Vonk Noordegraaf, Van de Riet et al. 2011).

Figure 3: Kingdon’s streams model

3. Serious game SprintCity The serious game SprintCity was initiated in 2009 by the Deltametropolis Association and has been developed since, in a joint project with the Serious gaming Centre of TU Delft, Movares and the Next Generation Infrastructures (NGI) foundation. The name of the SprintCity game is inspired by the conceptual image of a city or corridor of railway station environments linked by frequent shortdistance train services. In the Netherlands the trains that stop at each station along a railway line are known as ‘Sprinters’; therefore the name “SprintCity”.

3.1 Background and goals For TOD in the Netherlands to be implemented, it needs to deal with a complex multi-actor environment, which requires conscious and appropriate actions by each actor, in order to be successful. In practice, successful implementation of TOD in the Netherlands is rare. The actors that should be involved are as followed: 1) Municipalities mostly plan within the scope of their own administrative boundaries (the local scale). This means that they do not have to take the wider region into account, which might result in competition between municipalities and oversupply on the regional land use development market.

2) Transit companies focus mainly on efficiency in their part of the transit system. They usually do not participate in local and regional spatial planning issues.

3) Regional and provincial governments are at this moment reconfiguring their role, concerning spatial planning and transit concessions. TOD on the regional level is often promoted by these actors, but they are dependent on other actors to implement it.

Serious game SprintCity was developed to increase understanding of how the different relationships between the various actors work in practice, and what is needed to improve this.

It provides a model environment in which actors try to implement TOD by ‘playing the game’, thus Figure 4: network of rail corridors in the creating an environment that resembles reality but is Delta Metropolis (Randstad Holland) free from the constraint of reality. It seeks to create the social and instrumental policy learning by combining a role-play game setting with computer simulation, based on real cases and data. Gaming teams represent relevant roles in TOD practice, such as municipalities, the transit company and the regional/provincial government. The computer simulation helps to give an overview of the spatial and mobility parameters involved; it provides realtime feedback on planning decisions by each team, and at certain moments also on the performance of the corridor as a whole. `

The hypothesis has been that the focus on social interaction, supported by relevant digital information, promotes a planning discussion during the game, which may lead to shared vision on TOD as a basis for multi- actor collaboration in practice.

(Nefs, Gerretsen et al. 2010). By doing so, SprintCity is hypothesized as a tool that enables actors to experience the barriers when trying to implement TOD in the game and to learn from this experience what the possible options are to deal with these same barriers in reality.

3.2 Game mechanism and implementation The land use – transport feedback cycle with Dutch TOD actors (figure 2) is the core mechanism of serious game SprintCity. This is reflected as follows:

1) It provides a physical delineation of the system: the transport corridor is the smallest transportland-use unit in which all variables and actors are active. Randstad Holland is made up of over 10 transport corridors (figure 4).

2) Land use is primarily focused on ‘density’ - the number of households and jobs within 1200m around the station; and public transport mobility on ‘intensity’ – the number of trains and other transport modes at the station, as well as the frequency of the service.

3) Increasing accessibility of the railway station stimulates the demand for urban program in the station area.

4) Denser land use around stations stimulates the demand for public transport mobility.

5) A functioning feedback cycle, where the factors influence each other in a positive way, is necessary to realize the ambitions of each actor. Besides this it has favorable effects on common goals: a sustainable, accessible living environment and the competitive position of the Randstad in Europe.

The goal of each municipality player is to develop its station area in 5 phases of 4 years from the year 2010 to 2030, according to previously chosen ambitions and a master plan, drawn up by the player himself or preprogrammed by the game leader. The rail transporter player has the goal of improving the public transport system (higher frequency) and attracting more passengers. The regional government is responsible for the common goals, which can only be achieved through coordinated land use development along the corridor, in conjunction with increased train frequencies.

Like in reality, available infrastructure and demand for land use development during a certain period of time is limited. To realize their ambitions, players have to take the available infrastructure and the total demand for land use development into account. During the game, strategic cooperation and negotiation are required to achieve better results for each individual player and for the result of the whole corridor.

The game is intended to be played with stakeholders with some expert or background knowledge regarding TOD (administrators, planners, politicians, interest groups, experts and consultants, etc.).

At the time of writing of this paper, 32 game sessions have been held, with participation of over 250 stakeholders.

Figure 5: screen shot of SprintCity

The game currently simulates 2 existing railway corridors, one connecting the city of Leiden to Schiphol (Amsterdam airport), as displayed in figure 5; the other connecting the cities of The Hague and Rotterdam. The corridors contain respectively 6 and 9 stations, 3 of which have in reality not been implemented yet. Data of the transport network and land use within a 1.200 meter radius around each station were loaded into the game. These data reflect the real world situation, so are based on actual inhabitants, numbers of trains, etc.

For many stakeholders, these corridors have provided a rather generic and neutral case, as they are not personally responsible for these corridors in practice. It is assumed that these generic sessions have served well to transfer knowledge regarding TOD mechanisms and the multi-actor planning processes, enough to bring the topic under the attention of stakeholders. For significant improvement in TOD practice however, a customized simulation is needed for each case.

At this moment, a new SprintCity corridor is being implemented, as a planning support system (PSS) in one of the Dutch provinces. Besides the spatial and transport characteristics of this railway line, also site-specific land use plans and relevant real estate market scenarios are loaded into the simulation. It is expected that learning effects will increase in a customized version. The next chapter describes the social and instrumental learning effects of the already performed simulation sessions, based on the 2 mentioned existing corridors.

4. Results Three gaming sessions with serious game SprintCity were held as part of this research, involving civil servants concerned with the development of the station areas within their municipality or province.

Through the in depth analyses of these gaming sessions with serious game SprintCity, questionnaires for all the players (n = 29) and in-depth interviews (n = 12), the learning effects of serious game SprintCity were examined. Through this, it became clear in which case SprintCity can contribute to instrumental and social policy learning, using Kingdon’s streams model as theoretical perspective.

4.1 learning effects When looking at figure 6 on the next page, it is striking that only two statements were positively rated by the majority of the players. According to the majority of the players, the game provided them a better awareness of the current and future land use plans within the station areas. They also found that serious game SprintCity contributed to a better awareness of the mutual influence of decisions of different actors involved in TOD on a corridor. Half of the players stated that the game enriched their perspective or image of TOD and that they gained a better understanding of the interrelatedness between urban developments in transport networks. These outcomes are supported by the information obtained from the in-depth interviews. The interviewees stated that serious game SprintCity mainly contributed to a raised awareness of the importance of collaboration between relevant actors and to a raised awareness of the importance of complementarity regarding land use development types between different station areas along a railway line. It can be argued that this reduces the barriers of limited knowledge exchange and the lack of will to improve collaboration.

Only a small percentage of the players found that the game contributed to a better understanding of the relation between accessibility and urban development, more awareness of different planning solution for TOD and a different perspective on TOD. Even a smaller percentage of the players found that game contributed to more awareness of the infrastructural plans around train stations and a better understanding of the mathematical model of SprintCity. These findings are also supported by the outcomes of the in-depth interviews. The interviewees stated that the game is more focused on

the spatial aspect of TOD than on the infrastructural aspect. Moreover, it was found that the simulation of serious game SprintCity was not transparent enough.

Figure 6: cognitive learning effects of serious game SprintCity Awareness of the urban plans around trainstations Awareness of mutual influence of decisions of different actors Image of TOD enriched Understanding the interconnectedness of urban developments in transportnetwork Understanding the process of TOD strongly agree

Understanding long term development of nodes

agree

Understanding the effectivity of (policy) instruments for controlling TOD

no meaning

Awareness of mutual influence of decisions on different administrative scales Awareness of suitable urban developments in stationarea's

Disagree

Understanding the relation between accessibility and urban planning

strongly disagree

Awareness of different solutions for TOD Perspective on TOD changed Awareness of the infrastructural plans around trainstations Understanding the mathematical model of SprintCity 0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Figure 7 below shows that most players enjoyed playing serious game SprintCity, in fact no one stated that serious game was not fun to play. Moreover, a majority of the players found the game motivating and they would want to play the game again. However, only half of the players supported the outcomes of SprintCity. This can be explained by the fact that most outcomes were produced with a non-transparent simulation model. A minority of the players stated that their interest for TOD was raised due to playing serious game SprintCity. Even a smaller percentage of the players valued the concept of TOD more after playing SprintCity.

Figure 7: affective learning effects of serious game SprintCity Fun game Motivating game

strongly agree

Like to play SprintCity again

agree no meaning

Support outcomes

Disagree

Interest for TOD

strongly disagree TOD is valuable 0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Serious game SprintCity is above all a role-play game, in which the players need to communicate and collaborate to achieve their goals. More than half of the players found that serious game SprintCity contributed to better discussions, that they were more open and honest in their conversations, that the overall communication improved because of the game, that the collaboration between players was better and that knowledge was shared among the players during the game. The better communication and collaboration should amongst other things lead to more consensus, more trust, a shared vision on TOD etc. Although serious game SprintCity contributed to better

communication and collaboration, a minority of the players found that this improvement of communication also contributed to consensus, more trust in each other, etc. It is possible that this is due to the fact that the players played the game only once. To achieve more trust and consensus within a group, it is very likely that more than one gaming session is needed.

Figure 8: communicative learning effects of serious game SprintCity Discussion with each other Honest with each other Better communication Sharing knowledge Better collaboration Higher connectedness with each other Consensus Higher tolerance for each others decisions Getting to know each other Understanding each others interests Trust others more Feel empathy for others Shared vision

strongly agree agree no meaning Disagree strongly disagree

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

4.2 policy context Serious game SprintCity was played several times with different Dutch public authorities. The different policy contexts of these authorities were examined through in-depth interviews and participant observation during the gaming sessions. This showed that serious game SprintCity was seen as interesting for further development when a window of opportunity existed in the policy context. When the window existed, the players of SprintCity considered serious game SprintCity as suitable tool for supporting the solutions they already had, more or less, in mind. It was remarkable that the authorities with, for SprintCity, suitable windows of opportunity consisted in most cases of provinces. This can be explained by the fact that railway lines cross municipality levels and have a more regional character, thus fitting the administrative boundaries of provinces.

5. Conclusion The measurement of communicative and affective learning effects seems to imply that playing serious game SprintCity helps in bringing together multiple actors of different sectors, communicating with each other on the subject of TOD, sharing visions and exchanging views.

Cognitive learning effects are less measured, which might be due to the nature of the players (civil servants already familiar with the concept of TOD) or limited transparency in the game (unclear what exactly is the transport-land use feedback mechanism in the game).

However, for these effects to contribute to actual policy learning, it seems to be essential that SprintCity is played during a window of opportunity.

The concept that lies behind the game SprintCity (implementing TOD on a corridor level) is seen as part of the solution stream. Therefore, playing SprintCity does not seem to be able to bring the three streams of Kingdon’s stream model together, thus opening up a window of opportunity.

However, the playing SprintCity does seem to keep the window of opportunity opened ‘longer’ by providing a setting in which the combination of solutions and participants can indeed solve the

problem. Realizing this is possible helps different participants to use the policy learning process and implement new or revised policies during this ‘window of opportunity’ Actors seem to be familiar with the concept of TOD before playing SprintCity, but still can learn a lot about the communicative and affective aspects of TOD. The serious game was seen as ‘fun’, as ‘motivating’, as ‘helping discussion’ and ‘being honest’ with each other. Communication and a certain ‘affect’ with each other and the concept of TOD are needed when building a shared vision together. It also helps cooperation or collaboration to make this vision a reality. By doing so, it can be argued that SprintCity does contribute to overcoming the barriers in the planning system that prevent this collaborations from happening, providing a platform on which actors learn together what policies are best to implement if they want to make TOD a reality.

In general, serious games seem to be a viable tool in finding a way forward in complex planning issues like TOD. By playing together, actors learn to understand each other, to share knowledge and to become enthusiastic for the idea. It is however hard to measure if this effect is due to the specific nature of the interaction between the actors (a serious game) or the due to interaction in general.

Also, it remains to be seen if the learning effects measured are indeed followed by new or revised policies.

6. The way forward SprintCity is a tool that provides actors with a way of overcoming barriers in the planning process of TOD, without changes in the institutional, legal or financial context. As such, it functions as a planning support system that provides a ‘bypass’ of the formal planning system and shows the possibility of a ‘shared vision’ which all actors can learn from and build upon.

However, the game has so far been played exclusively in a simulated context. For a shared vision to become a reality, the game has to be played in a real context, using ‘real’ data. So far, one province in the Netherlands is using SprintCity to investigate what the possibilities for TOD on the corridor level are on one of the railway corridors in their province. This might indeed lead to the adoption of a different policy and the realization of TOD on this corridor. A second province is currently deciding on this possibility.

The perceived lack of transparency in the serious game is something that needs to be addressed.

Transparency is one of the ‘key bottlenecks’ (Te Brömmelstroet 2010) in the implementation of planning support systems in the planning process. To address this bottleneck, the serious game has to be ‘opened up’; how does the transport-land use mechanism in the game work? Which data is used for the gameplay, and who provides it? What is the main focus of the game, and what does it therefore not tell us?

In the process of using SprintCity in a ‘real’ context, this requires a shift in approach from ‘developing for’ to ‘developing with’ (Te Brömmelstroet 2010) the actual users of SprintCity. It is expected that coproduction of the customized game, together with the actual users, will improve transparency and relevant data input, thus making it more useful as a planning support tool. Further research must show if this has indeed happened, and if so if this has resulted in changed policies.

Literature Balz, V. and J. Schrijnen (2009). From Concept to Projects: Stedenbaan, the Netherlands. Transit Oriented Development Making it Happen. C. Curtis, L. Bertolini and J. L. Renne. Farnham, Ashgate.

Bertolini, L. (2009). De Planologie van Mobiliteit. Amsterdam.

Bertolini, L., C. Curtis, et al. (2009). Introduction. Transit Oriented Development Making it Happen.

C. Curtis, L. Bertolini and J. L. Renne. Farnham, Ashgate.

Bovens, M. A. P., P. 't Hart, et al. (2001). Openbaar Bestuur: Beleid, Organisatie en Politiek. Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer.

Cervero, R. (2009). Public Transport and Sustainable Urbanism: Global Lessons. Transit Oriented Development Making it Happen. C. Curtis, L. Bertolini and J. L. Renne. Farnham, Ashgate: 23 - 38.

Dionnet, M., M. Kuper, et al. (2008). "Combining Role-Playing Games and Policy Simulation Exercises: an Experience with Moroccan Smallholder Farmers." Simulation & Gaming 39(4): 498 514.

Garris, R., R. Ahlers, et al. (2002). "Games, Motivation and Learning: A Research and Practice Model." Simulation & gaming 33(4): 441 - 467.

Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, Little, Brown.

May, P. J. (1992). "Policy Learning and Failure." Journal of Public Policy 12(4): 331 - 354.

Mayer, I. (2009). "The Gaming of Policy and the Politics of Gaming: a Review." Simulation & gaming 40(6): 825 - 862.

Michaels, S., N. P. Goucher, et al. (2006). "Policy Windows, Policy Change and Organizational Learning: Watersheds in the Evolution of Watershed Management. ." Environment Management 38(6): 983 - 992.

Nefs, M., P. Gerretsen, et al. (2010). Gaming the Interrelation between Rail Infrastructure and Station Area Development: Part 1 – Modeling the Serious Game ‘SprintCity’. Infrastructures for EcoCities, Shenzhen.

Susi, T., M. Johannesson, et al. (2007). Serious Games – An Overview. Technical Report HS- IKI TR-07-001. School of Humanities and Informatics. Sweden, University of Skövde.

Tan, W. (2009). Policy context of key transit-oriented projects for station locations within Netherlands. Railways, Real Estate & the Re-Making of Cities in the 21st Century Rail Station Area Redevelopment Mega-Projects in Europe, North America & Beyond. Berlin, TU Berlin, Center for Metropolitan Studies.

Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2010). "Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment." The Journal of Transport and Land Use 3(1): 25 - 41.

UitvoeringsAlliantie Centrumen knooppuntontwikkeling knooppuntontwikkeling ontrafeld. Den Haag.

(2010).

Centrum-

en

Vonk Noordegraaf, D. M., O. A. W. T. Van de Riet, et al. (2011). Road Pricing Policy Adoption: a Case Study of Rush Hour Avoidance. Transition towards Sustainable Mobility: the Role of Instruments, Individuals and Institutions. H. Geerlings, Y. Shiftan and D. Stead. London, Ashgate.

VROM-raad (2009). Acupunctuur in de hoofdstructuur. Den Haag, VROM-raad.

Wegener, M. and F. F端rst (1999). Land Use-Transport Interaction: State of the Art. Dortmund.

Wouters, P., E. Van der Spek, et al. (2009). Current Practices in Serious Game Research: a Review from a Learning Outcomes Perspective. Games-Based Learning Advancements for Multisensory Human Computer Interfaces: Techniques and Effective Practices T. M. Connolly, M. Stansfield and L. Boyle. Hershey, IGI Global: 232 - 250.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Paul Chorus (University of Amsterdam / Province of North-Holland) and Wendy Tan (University of Amsterdam) for reviewing this article.

Thanks to Gert-Jan Stolk, Daan Groen, Sebastiaan Meijer, Linda van Veen and their team at the Gaming Street (Delft University of Technology), for the design and programming of the software.

SprintCity is made possible by the Next Generation Infrastructures foundation.