Simulation Exercise: key lessons of co-creating policy for societal resilience

At its most basic, a simulation is a process that “makes like”—that is, creates an artifice, an environment that is realistic even if it is not real. A simulation is a narrative; it tells a story. Computational simulations involve running models with certain inputs for the purpose of observing outputs; immersive simulations may involve advanced, high-tech simulation spaces or low-tech versions such as tabletop exercises. The most common kind of immersive simulation is narrative fiction or film. 

The FUTURESILIENCE project conducted a high-tech simulation exercise in the Risk and Crisis Research Centre (RCR) Simulation Lab, on the campus of Mid Sweden University in Östersund at the beginning of April, where project participants were joined by local community members for a two-day policy workshop. This was a way to validate the project’s knowledge base and engage participants in the co-creation of public policy for societal resilience. 

The RCR Simulation Lab is an immersive simulation environment, which may be used to simulate different scenarios through the projection of film, still photography, and virtual environments in 360 degrees. In addition to 360-degree projection, the 8X8 simulation room features three-dimensional surround sound, a vibrating floor, scent and smoke machines, a range of temperature settings from 17–27 degrees Celsius, infrared heating, and professional stage lighting. 

The Simulation 

The simulation built on a scenario about the fictional city of Veilburgh, designed to represent a city on a European river featuring a working port, an industrial area, waterfront redevelopment, more- and less-affluent areas, and associated power and socioeconomic differentials. The exercise started with a background film introducing the city of Veilburgh and the challenges it faces. The simulation then got under way with participants “visiting” Veilburgh’s Emergency Command Centre and parts of the city as a severe storm was unfolding, threatening severe flooding and widespread infrastructure damage. 

In the policy workshop that followed, participants were tasked with designing public policy for societal resilience in Veilburgh. In groups of about five, workshop participants discussed (and aimed to reach agreement on) different policy interventions with the goal of increasing societal resilience for the fictional city of Veilburgh. The immediate concern was an extreme weather event; however, more long-term issues facing the city were also addressed. These included economic and social inequalities, pollution caused by heavy industry, and preparedness for the consequences of future severe weather events. Each group was supported by a facilitator, and every participant was debriefed individually at the end of the workshop to capture personal reflections on the simulation and the discussions that followed. 

The exercise highlighted the difficulty of defining a policy problem (i.e. something that can be addressed through governmental action) and showed how the framing of a problem shapes the available solutions. If the problem is framed as flooding, for example, one might advocate for better drainage infrastructure; if it is framed as social inequality, substandard housing, and flawed spatial planning, then other, more long-term and costly interventions become necessary. Participants were also asked to prioritise these problems and consider timelines for relevant policy responses. 

Key Learnings 

One important takeaway from this workshop concerns the translation of evidence-based research into actionable policy solutions. Three of the four groups participating in the workshop were presented with policy cards featuring interventions drawn from the FUTURESILIENCE project’s knowledge base. The final group was encouraged to consult databases or rely on previous experience and the professional expertise of group members to design policy interventions. The policy cards followed a standard format and were intended to condense lengthy reports and other documents produced by EU-funded projects into actionable policies. Each card included a short description of the intervention, its purpose, details on implementation (how, when, and where), intended users, beneficiaries, costs, and implementation requirements. A total of 15 cards were distributed to participants, including regulatory, communication, and monetary interventions. Participants reported that the policy cards were complex and time-consuming to read, especially given the time constraints of the workshop. Moreover, the cards lacked examples, which made them harder to interpret. Despite these challenges, participants were able to extract useful elements from the cards and assemble coherent policy proposals. 

A second key takeaway was the strategy of “divide and conquer.” One group chose to focus on two connected areas of the city—the industrial area and a neighbourhood consisting of low-income housing mostly inhabited by recent immigrants—rather than attempting to address all of Veilburgh. This enabled more specific and targeted problem definitions and corresponding policy responses. 

A third key insight relates to the value of such exercises for policymakers. As one policymaker noted, this process offered an effective way to teach politicians about policy design. It is important to remember that policymaking is inherently political, and politicians—who are generalists—are often required to make decisions on complex issues they may not fully understand. Institutionalising a process that brings together diverse stakeholders to evaluate and debate policy interventions, even complex ones, can greatly support evidence-based policymaking.

Prepared by MIUN - RCR Team