Playing With Uncertainty: Facilitating Community‐Based Resilience Building

Resilience has become a fundamental paradigm for communities to deal with disaster planning. Formal methods are used to prioritise and decide about investments for resilience. Strategies and behaviour need to be developed that cannot be based on formal modelling only because the human element needs to be incorporated to build community resilience. Participatory modelling and gaming are methodological approaches that are based on realistic data and address human behaviour. These approaches enable stakeholders to develop, adjust, and learn from interactive models and use this expe‐ rience to inform their decision‐making. In our contribution, we explore which physical and digital elements from seri‐ ous games can be used to design a participatory approach in community engagement and decision‐making. Our ongoing research aims to bring multiple stakeholders together to understand, model, and decide on the trade‐offs and tensions between social and infrastructure investments toward community resilience building. Initial observations allow us as researchers to systematically document the benefits and pitfalls of a game‐based approach. We will continue to develop a participatory modelling exercise for resilience planning with university graduate students and resilience experts within academia in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Community resilience planning needs public participation to include multiple perspectives for effective decision-making and to advance where robust scientific approaches meet decision-making needs (Barton et al., 2020). Consequently, it is difficult to communicate the concept of resilience to decision-makers along with practical implications. For example, Norris et al. (2008) describe resilience as a process rather than an outcome. This process includes social capital, community compe-tence, information and communication resources, and economic development. However, some of these aspects are measurable, others are not, and thus do not provide clear guidance for policymakers in the field (Norris et al., 2008).
Disasters and crises happen in and beyond social, policy, and infrastructure systems. In growing and interconnected systems, it is challenging for decision-makers to comprehend the impact of their actions on other systems or interdependent infrastructure systems (Ansell et al., 2010;van Laere et al., 2018). Disaster researchers, planning managers, and policymakers along with the community need to understand the profound implications of interconnected social and infrastructure networks that deliver essential services (Thacker et al., 2019). For a better understanding of, and ability to apply, knowledge of the distinct dimensions of resilience, these experts have to make their knowledge explicit.
Approaches that support decision-making processes provide an avenue for improving public participation by encouraging the awareness of multiple conflicting tensions to make choices. Participatory modelling seems to be such a promising approach as a decision-support tool for community resilience because of its ability to represent realistic models and the inclusion of the human element in an interactive way (Miles, 2018;Voinov & Bousquet, 2010). We conceptualise simulation and serious games as instruments of participatory modelling. Simulation and serious games have played an important role in bridging the interface between scientific information and decision-making processes since the 1960s (Ampatzidou et al., 2018;Duke, 1980). In addition, simulation games are widely known as a research method for the transdisciplinary integration of concepts, theories, perceptions, information, and techniques (Lukosch & Comes, 2019). Flood et al. (2018) present a systematic review of the use of serious games for engagement and decisionmaking specifically in the climate change and adaptation arena, including the application in recovery, analysing prevention, and disaster management. So far, the focus of serious games has been on emergency training, risk management, and educating audiences about disaster preparedness, with less attention on preparedness for investment and engaging with local actors and engineering (infrastructure) stakeholders (Bathke et al., 2019;Flood et al., 2018). Our work aims to close this gap with the exploration and development of an engaging way for different actors such as communities, infrastructure providers, resilience researchers, and policymakers to understand trade-offs and interdependencies when building community resilience. This contribution is part of ongoing research on participatory modelling in building resilience, and its scope is limited to exploring past work on serious games that could inform which physical and digital elements are useful to design a participatory approach used for community resilience planning.
In the first two sections of this article, we explore how game-based participatory modelling can contribute to an understanding of building resilience as a process of addressing both the technical and the social dimensions. In Sections 3 and 4 of the article, we present related approaches and summarise common game elements to inform our participatory methodology. These sections do not include the implementation with practitioners but focus on design choices and first experiences with university students and academic experts in New Zealand. In the last sections, we conclude by analysing the benefits and pitfalls of some game elements from related work applied to our participatory modelling approach.

Dilemmas Between Social and Infrastructure Resilience
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, adopted by the United Nations (United Nations Office for International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2015), because of its emphasis on multidimensional and interrelated resilience, supports a need for approaching resilience through both (a) improving infrastructure assets and (b) improving the social capital needed to respond to a future disaster effectively. Currently, it could be argued that decisions toward disaster risk reduction are made by disaster experts, planning managers, and policymakers, assuming independence between social and infrastructure system investments (Avendano-Uribe et al., 2020).
On the one hand, physical infrastructure is the built environment, structures and facilities that provide essential services to sustain human activities (O'Rourke, 2019). Resilience in the context of infrastructure is considered a mechanism by which an infrastructure system can prepare for and adapt itself against disruptive events to reduce vulnerability and increase adaptive capacity (Fuchs & Thaler, 2018;O'Rourke, 2019;Omer, 2013). In particular, the critical infrastructure that supports communities includes transportation and water, energy, and food supplies. Besides transportation buildings (roads, highways, bridges, airports, and public transit), critical infrastructure includes waste-related facilities (wastewater treatment, solid waste, and hazardous-waste services) and other services that are connected to the network of residencies (Chester, 2019;Cutter, 2020;O'Rourke, 2013). Infrastructure resilience centres on engineered and social systems (e.g., an infrastructure network or community as a whole; Davidson, 2015). However, infrastructure resilience as a conceptual framework approached from the perspective of physicaltechnical systems alone has limitations and drawbacks. Those institutional arrangements that enable infrastructure resilience to operate are the links between social assets and infrastructure assets.
On the other hand, social capital is defined as the cumulative experience of information, trust, institutions, norms, and expectations about behaviours among a community to plan, prevent, mitigate, and prepare for a disaster and the learning experience to respond and recover from a disaster (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015;Cai, 2017;Yan & Galloway, 2017). Social capital includes actions made before, during, and after a natural disaster: prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
In resilience planning, the context that affects tradeoffs and decision outcomes can change over space and time. That is why it is important to enquire not just about the resilience of what, to what, and for whom, but also why and where (Meerow & Newell, 2019). For example, New Zealand is a country that has an international reputation in terms of resilience practice (Wither et al., 2021). The New Zealand Ministry of Social Development defined what matters in communities as social resilience, referring to building connections between people and communities, access to decision-makers, and policy and research communication (Chen et al., 2021). Access to critical infrastructure and essential services is paramount to community resilience (Logan & Guikema, 2020).
One vital challenge in the field of community resilience, and the main motivation for our study, is that resilience itself is a rather ill-defined operationalised concept, which makes it challenging to communicate the concept along with practical implications to decisionmakers (Ottens et al., 2006;Wither et al., 2021). Overall, researchers are liable to focus on either the impacts on infrastructure overlooking the social impacts of resilience or vice versa (Doorn, 2019;Doorn et al., 2019). There is an appreciation that the two types of capital are needed. According to Saja et al. (2019), the trend to consider multiple variables as resilience indicators can be confusing for the practice of community resilience building. They suggest that generalising a framework can improve resilience investment decisions across different contexts. Still, current multi-dimensional frameworks lack an adequate measure of social resilience for effective decision making.
Our study upholds integrative approaches to understand resilience in complex systems and create a common stakeholder arena to make decisions. That is why we adopt the conceptualisation of resilience for sociotechnical systems (STSs). A STS refers to the interplay and interlinked social and technical parts of a system (Van der Merwe et al., 2018). Complex STSs involve physical-technical elements and networks of interdependent actors. Problems cannot be understood or solved without the knowledge of the system and its actors (de Bruijn & Herder, 2009). Community resilience integrates both social and infrastructure assets, their interactions, and non-linear complexity, and societies should use that integrated understanding to make informed decisions. Our approach aims to develop an understanding of the interdependencies and role of both the physical-technical systems and the social elements in building resilience.

Participatory Approaches to Building Socio-Technical Resilience
There is a need to understand the challenge of integrating social and infrastructure assets, their interactions, interdependencies, and non-linear complexity to make informed decisions. Numerical or quantitative analysis for building resilience should therefore be combined with knowledge on actor networks and social elements when building resilience. As a solution, in our work, we aim to develop an engaging way of participation for communities, infrastructure providers, resilience researchers, and policymakers to develop a col-lective understanding of trade-offs and interdependencies between both social and infrastructure resilience investments to build community resilience.
Engineers use formal models within their decisionmaking processes to bridge the perceived actual reality and the intended reality. Challenges remain due to misunderstandings related to the limitation of modelling methods and the role models play to support decisions (Elms & Brown, 2012). Computer-based and mathematical models support planning and decisionmaking processes by providing quantitative information (Basco-Carrera et al., 2017), and spatial tools for collaborative planning (Schindler et al., 2020;White et al., 2010). However, complex systems cannot be analysed just with numbers themselves (Rosling et al., 2018). The combination of data tools and people's participation in understanding these systems could provide a benefit in the sense of evidence-based support systems to enable informed decisions. That is why participation approaches in modelling and simulationcalled participatory modelling-are useful to actively engage stakeholders in the decision-making process for resilience planning and management (Perrone et al., 2020). Designing for participation in systems is designing with stakeholders, for human experience in and of systems, and to enable stakeholders to relate to a larger system (Brazier & Nevejan, 2014).
Modelling with stakeholders allows researchers to better represent the system and understand the multiple connections between the model built and the real system itself. For example, decisions are implemented with less conflict and more success when they are driven by stakeholders (Voinov & Bousquet, 2010). Consequently, simulation models are used as boundary objects or negotiating artefacts to facilitate transparent and verifiable discussions and the proliferation of ideas (van Bruggen et al., 2019). In recent years, resilience frameworks have been utilised in science and policy interventions in natural resources and disaster risk management (Sellberg et al., 2018). Researchers suggest that fostering learning, increasing participation, and facilitating awareness among stakeholders about trade-offs, interdependencies, and interactions in complex adaptive systems is a way to strengthen community resilience (Biggs et al., 2015).
The use of participatory modelling could help policymakers, communities, and engineers understand different perspectives around the same problem , especially when policymakers need to comprehend interdependencies between social systems and infrastructure (Thacker et al., 2019). However, participatory methodologies combined with quantitative data collection and abstract modelling could be a challenge. An innovative way to solve this gap is using simulation games or serious games in risk and disaster planning to both inform audiences and to empower stakeholders (Barreteau et al., 2021;Bathke et al., 2019).
As a form of participatory modelling, serious or simulation games are used in research to understand interactive decisions in complex engineering systems (Grogan & Meijer, 2017). Serious games are defined as activities used for purposes other than entertainment (Bathke et al., 2019). Abt (1987, p. 6) defines games as "an activity among two or more independent decisionmakers seeking to achieve their objectives in some limiting context." Applied to engineering research, games incorporate data from an underlying model but are not quite as realistic as actual fieldwork (case studies; Figure 1).  Figure 1 illustrates that serious games are in between an abstract representation of reality, controlled by a model and a case study that is close to reality when understood as a case study. Modelling methods help to understand reality by simplifying the complexity using an abstract representation of the real world (Grogan & Meijer, 2017). Simulation games are interactive environments that simultaneously model a technical system through simulation and a social system with role-play participants (Grogan & Meijer, 2017).

Control
Despite existing studies and raising demand for practical guidance on resilience planning and climate adaptation, practical studies on the resilience of STSs are scarce, and more work needs to be done to understand the social domains required to ensure resilience Sellberg et al., 2018;Van der Merwe et al., 2018). The lack of innovative methodologies to encourage systems thinking remains a challenge to tackle wicked problems. We discuss serious games as a participatory method to create a common understanding of the complexity of resilience, especially the concepts of social and infrastructure resilience.

Related Work: Serious Games for Community Resilience Building
Our exploration starts with an inquiry into the role of elements from serious games in community resilience building. We analyse common elements of serious games applied to resilience to illustrate what game elements are useful to build our participatory modelling approach. First, we present game settings from general serious games applied in resilience of STS to find which game elements have potential application for our purposes. Secondly, starting from this analysis, we chose three game examples that aim to facilitate resilience-building using participatory approaches and we conduct detailed analysis to inform our findings on game elements useful to apply a research tool for policy making.
The main reason to use serious games for resilience in STSs is to provide an immersive experience crucial for facilitating multi-stakeholder interaction. The work of Solinska-Nowak et al. (2018), which analyses 45 serious games used in disaster risk management, inspires our participatory modelling methodology design. They find that serious and simulation games are powerful tools to assist risk awareness, perspective-taking, and empathy. In addition, they show that in these types of games, players can select between simulated scenarios and observe the consequences of their decisions when the disaster finally develops. For example, two of the games cited by Solinska-Nowak et al. (2018)-Decisions for the Decade and Paying for Predictions-involve investments as the main stakeholder exercise. These games allow participants to increase their awareness about planning investments while choosing scenarios to discuss the implications of each decision. Our lesson is that deliberation processes could foster relevant conversations between multiple agents and perspectives, improving stakeholders' cross-fertilisation of ideas (Ansell et al., 2010). However, there are no games addressing the problem of planning for community resilience based on infrastructure and social assets and related interconnections and trade-offs. We intend to address this problem with our own participatory modelling approach.
Research conducted by van Laere et al. (2018) provides game development combined with role-playing simulations to understand interdependencies in critical infrastructure. They highlight game elements such as learning goals, choice of player roles, degree of realism, the time scale of scenario, and re-play abilities. In their research three challenges remain: (a) Models about infrastructure resilience tend to be too abstract, (b) scenarios are limited to short term disruptions and lack of interactions to explain cascades, and (c) community resilience continues to be difficult to operationalise with simple metrics (van Laere et al., 2018 (2018) the use of hypothetical scenarios using a model that allows participants to understand the system while interacting in a user-friendly platform. Our lesson from those games is that bringing together stakeholders to discuss a common problem from different social and infrastructure (technical) perspectives can potentially foster systems thinking in the civil system engineering sector. For example, CIPRTrainer is a game to increase the awareness of crisis managers in disasters about interconnected critical infrastructures while understanding possible consequences of a specific scenario evolution (Rome et al., 2016). Revisited serious games aim to provide a tool for decision-makers to train themselves. This is the case of Smart Mature Resilience, where researchers suggest engaging with multiple stakeholders to foster the participation of professionals who will use the gained skills during the game later (Iturriza et al., 2017). In the Sustainable Infrastructure Planning Game, the aim is to build an interactive simulation model with graduate students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Grogan, 2014). A similar approach is chosen for the game SPRITE, which aims to teach risk management to engineering students to raise awareness about the risk of coastal flooding. SPRITE places students in the roles of policymakers and politicians while simulating real situations (Taillandier & Adam, 2018). The Sustainable Infrastructure Planning Game, SimportMV2, and SPRITE show that trials with graduate students that play the role of practitioners are useful for understanding further implementation. In addition to the games presented previously, we searched for references close to civil systems engineering that use community resilience planning to understand interconnections and trade-offs in STSs. We neglected to choose references on post-disaster analysis, disaster management, or financial aspects of a crisis. We found 11 research-based games and we identified similarities and differences in game elements (Figure 2).
We discovered that elements like role-playing and simulations, scenarios or storytelling, and debriefing are relevant in games associated with STSs. However, systems thinking, negotiation, and discussions are not always present and physical and digital elements vary. Only three games-Kin Dee You Dee, Ready for Drought?, and MoBinn-have common elements from the criteria we analysed in Figure 2. We have chosen these serious games because of the experiences reported with local authorities, the inclusion of decision-making processes enhancing collaboration, and the variety of themes related to resilience covering social/technical systems. Finally, the diversity of locations for these three serious games (Asia, America, and Europe) helps to extract lessons. Here, we compare the three games extracting the purpose of the game, its elements, and the dos and don'ts analysis following Freese et al. (2020; Table 2). We provide a detailed description of the three games described in Table 2 and in the Supplementary File.
The analyses presented in Table 1, Figure 2, and Table 2 serve to extract game elements that could be essential in creating a participatory modelling approach in the context of community resilience in STSs. For example, the use of scenarios, narratives, and storytelling can be useful for facilitating and guiding participants into an immersive experience to easily understand complex concepts and systems thinking. The use of role-playing and physical elements such as tokens, dates, pawns, dices, and boards, can support the game dynamic of the participation using visual cues, adding some physical experience to the game. Finally, negotiation sessions, peer-review feedback, and reflections throughout a debriefing moment can support the communication and interaction between participants . In the following section, we show how game elements from the above analyses are informing our participatory approach for an STS in New Zealand.

Our Prototype: Playing With Uncertainty to Facilitate Community Resilience Building in New Zealand
A unique and internationally recognised community resilience process can be identified in New Zealand, which has emerged over a decade from the Canterbury earthquakes that caused huge urban and suburban damage (Thornley et al., 2015). In addition, New Zealand has seen recent efforts for engaging communities in decision-making processes using digital and physical tools (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Lawrence et al., 2021;Schindler et al., 2020), in post-disaster community-led interventions Dionisio & Pawson, 2016), and infrastructure resilience decision-making processes (Davies, 2019;Davies et al., 2021). A common consensus is that there is a need to engage stakeholders to make risk-informed decisions and use contextual factors to enhance community resilience planning (O'Rourke, 2019). The challenge is to build engagement for a decision tool without losing expertise from the competence and proficiency of experts and at the same time include stakeholders' ideas as a genuine participation exercise and not only as a pre-requisite for engaging with actors.
To address these challenges, we are developing Playing With Uncertainty, a serious game as a participatory modelling approach to facilitate community-based resilience building. We are designing role-playing negotiations as a simulated decision-making process in an STS. The intention behind the game is that participants must trade-off between investing in social and infrastructure resilience. The game recreates tensions in STS and conflicting decisions between multiple stakeholders. Participants play roles as community leaders, infrastructure providers, and policymakers. They need to communicate to negotiate and decide whether to invest and arrange priorities from a list of factors and variables of social and infrastructure (technical) assets that secure resilience building in the long term under potential flooding scenarios due to sea-level rise. The mechanics of the game are constructed so that over-investment in one type of resilience is unfavourable, though the participants are only able to probe the mechanics through trial investments. The context of the exercise is to decide how to use a 10-year budget (2020-2030) from the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Program at the Christchurch City Council in the Canterbury region, New Zealand (Christchurch City Council, 2021).
Community resilience remains to be a concept that is difficult to operationalise (Wither et al., 2021). For that reason, Playing With Uncertainty is using social and infrastructure factors derived from the literature on community resilience building in New Zealand (Cutter et al., 2014;Kwok et al., 2016;Langridge et al., 2016;The Treasury, 2020;Thornley et al., 2015). In our prototype, social factors include (a) increasing community connectedness and opportunities to  (Thornley et al., 2015). Infrastructure factors include (a) building buffer zones and storm barriers, (b) building pontoons/amphibious houses, and (c) property acquisitions removing infrastructure. According to Geurts et al. (2007), a game is a tool to structure communication in complex systems and, as a research method, can facilitate the analysis of STSs. Games have multiple elements, symbols, and components to support communication between participants (or players; Geurts et al., 2007). Gaming as a research method helps to master complexity. Analysis of multiple components of an STS could help to create game elements .
Playing With Uncertainty collects elements from the related STSs of coastal protection in Christchurch and transforms them into game elements. Every serious game element extracted has a match with the element highlighted from the related STS analysed (Table 3). Table 3 is the result of our analysis and shows how our design will include the following game elements: graphic displays (dashboard), simulations, scenarios, storytelling, systems thinking, tabletops, decision negotiation, and debriefing. Our design will also include physical game elements: tokens, coins, and a table board. In our effort to create a hybrid game, digital and physical technologies are combined (Kankainen et al., 2017). We can shape our design elements for role-playing negotiation and scenario analysis based on lessons from the analysis of serious games presented in Section 3. This hybridisation seems particularly promising for disaster-related research for being able to process (realistic) data that players can use and the physical elements that support the social aspect of the gameplay, facilitate discussion, and enable the "play" feeling that might be relevant to remove some realistic context. The physical elements will be evaluated on their ability to foster communication between participants, while the digital elements will be evaluated for data visualisation. The intention is to use the design described here first with university graduate students, many of whom are conducting doctoral research into community resilience. Figure 3 shows physical game material that we intend to use to support scenario thinking and roletaking. Investments in physical (infrastructure) and social resilience are visualised on the game board. 3D printed dice show what scenario is simulated. The board design, role cards, and tokens help to visualise the dynamics for the participants. Figure 4 shows how an early trial of the game that has been played with graduate students in resilience at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. A combination of physical elements and digital support is evident. We conducted a trial to test the usability of the elements created. During one hour of the game session, the facilitator introduces the aim of the game, rules, instructions, and usability of the game elements. Every participant (six in total) has a role assigned to play. They also have a budget assigned to invest in every round. If they do not spend it, they cannot save it and lose their score as decisionmakers. Participants need to wisely discuss their budget both individually and collectively to make sure all factors for community resilience are included in the investment plan.
Participants play six rounds. Each round has a scenario, and a different adaptation plan defines it. Planning for future events requires modelling scenarios with different factors and test parameters to understand potential consequences to make effective decisions. The scenario is defined by chance using the disaster dice. Once every scenario is shown in the sheet, the facilitator discusses potential interdependencies and trade-offs derived from decisions made with participants. Each participant has a say according to their role, and discussions are encouraged by the facilitator, adding tension and conflict to the conversation while investment negotiations happen. Each participant makes a decision and the facilitator, with the help of a modeller, collects data from multiple investment rounds with the digital dashboard, visualising the consequences of each decision immediately.

Summary and Discussion
In our work, we assume that using game elements to facilitate a participatory modelling approach will improve engagement with multiple stakeholders while simulating a decision-making process. This argument is supported by past evidence suggesting that games benefit participatory modelling (Bakhanova et al., 2020). We captured design elements from related serious games to support a game-based participatory modelling approach in building community resilience. We conceptualise resilience as a complex STS and distinguish between physical and social resilience. We have analysed past work on serious games that inform the design of our participatory approach related to a complex STS. Our study is located in the context of resilience in New Zealand and translates the social and technicalphysical elements of it into game elements. An early trial with our game prototype suggests the potential of the game elements to foster an understanding of resilience concepts. Implementation and analysis of the game's application are beyond the scope of this article.
Playing With Uncertainty aids investment decisionmaking while participants discuss resilience interventions using the role-playing negotiations approach. Science-based role-play exercises are a type of serious game that involves face-to-face mock decision-making (Rumore et al., 2016). Contrasting with literature, we could observe that the role-play negotiation elements could inspire collaborative learning, cooperation, and body and oral expression to work collaboratively on solving a challenge in the community (Boal, 2013;Tolomelli, 2016). We built Playing With Uncertainty on this idea

Briefing
Facilitators and researchers introduce aims, define scope, and explain instructions and rules of the game. They are using storytelling to contextualise participants.
Decision-makers Decision-makers: Six participants in charge of the investment resilience plan. Two engineers or technical experts in infrastructure resilience, two community leaders, and two policymakers.

Role-play cards and tokens
Participants with a role to play are represented in a card/token.

Disasters
Descriptive sheets with statistical information and data-driven statements based on literature review and national standards for each potential natural hazard in the location.

Scenarios
Simulated visualisation of consequences of a natural hazard on the geographical area.

Uncertainty
Hazards are prone to happen in the context. 3D printed dice. Each face shows a different risk: earthquake, flood, tsunami, fire, storm, and volcano eruption.
Disaster dice Randomisation of events occurring. It gives the game unexpected situations and tension due to uncertain pressures.
Social and technical assets List conflicting variables or social and infrastructure (technical) factors related to each scenario.

Conflicting variables
The weighting of factors changes with each scenario.

Investment plans
Turns of the decision-making process with a specific time for discussion between participants.
Negotiation rounds Drivers of the conversation for investment.

Budget
Poker coins are equivalent to the weight of investment for each conflicting variable: social and infrastructure assets.
Coins/money tokens Amount of money available for each investment round.

Data visualisation
A dashboard engine to visualise the consequences of the investment rounds and results from the negotiated decisions. It contains a model of the STS visualising it in terms of investment weights per round and scenario.

Physical and digital board: Dashboards
Decision visualisation tool representing inputs, outputs, and interaction of system´s elements. Dashboard as a digital element, and table board, dice, coins, and tokens as physical elements. (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

Final decisions
Outcomes from the negotiation. Debriefing Participants and researchers reflect on decisions made and the game as a tool to facilitate it.  as a tool to involve stakeholders in resolving a problem in uncovered tensions between social and physicaltechnical resilience. Role-playing and negotiation of conflicting values foster discussions and facilitate the decision-making process within the context of realistic scenarios. This game-based participatory modelling exercise could alleviate tensions between participants as it represents a safe, experiential environment without the risk of real-world consequences.
We have learned that designing game elements that connect the game back to the STSs, such as briefing and debriefing, is crucial. Participants require processes and spaces that allow them to meaningfully contribute their ideas, needs, knowledge, and perspectives toward decision-making processes (Hore et al., 2020). Related to resilience, Playing With Uncertainty offers an immersive experience to highlight that participation is crucial to reducing vulnerability, enhancing local capacities to face disasters, and effectively reducing the impacts of hazard events. Integration of complex systems modelling using participatory approaches is a solution for engaging stakeholders in building resilience. Our approach makes use of planning activities for resilience investments. This helps participants to improve their understanding of the system, reduce conflicts between different points of view, and facilitate community engagement in the process (Carmona et al., 2013;Ganapati & Ganapati, 2008;Henly-Shepard et al., 2015). The advantages are that participants make sense of the complexity of policy issues and reflect on system inter-linkages and stakeholder plurality (Beaven et al., 2016).
The use of dos and don'ts analysis shown in Table 2 helped us to reiterate best practices and avoid mistakes from others. For example, the serious game MoBinn shows how physical elements (board) can be used to enable a better understanding of the complexity of the interests of the stakeholders involved, and the need for collaboration. It also shows that the use of dice can foster a sense of uncertainty. It helps stakeholders to understand the variability of the consequences and level of unpredictability that they might need to confront while stakeholders are deciding on resilient alternatives of investments under potential disasters. That inspired the creation of our disaster dice.
The serious game Ready for Drought? presents disaster scenarios as the core element of the game. Researchers included contextualised problem definitions to enable participants to understand the complexity of the problem tackled. The use of coins and tokens accompanies the element of role-playing and adds context to the problem to be addressed. The serious game Kin Dee You Dee considers trialling role-play games with tertiary education students. This inspired our role-play negotiations and encouraged us to think about implementing qualitative tools such as questionnaires and debriefing sessions. This could foster awareness among participants while discussing short-and long-term consequences of decisions made.
In our game, a digital element of the data dashboard together with a physical game board aims to support data-driven decision making. The hybrid nature supports the social and behavioural aspects while understanding tensions in social and infrastructure resilience investments. The translation of elements of the STS of resilience into digital and physical game elements as shown in Table 3 allows us to learn, adjust, and develop our game design based on player feedback and observation.
Finally, our participatory modelling approach is based on a simulation game that represents a real STS at a certain level of abstraction, and participants who work together to complete the aim of the game . The idea behind engaging with stakeholders this way is to promote: 1. A holistic system understanding: Participants understand while participating on a system level, so the system includes stakeholders' perspectives; 2. Ownership of modelling techniques: Participants could learn modelling techniques along with researchers to simulate decision making and use the model built; 3. Legitimacy of decision-making processes: Participants could express their genuine ideas and bring their insights to the negotiation process leaving room for transparent discussions for deciding.

Key Considerations
Public engagement with multiple stakeholders for decision-making and planning is paramount for building community resilience. We propose modelling with stakeholders as an engaging way of participation for communities to understand complex systems and support their decisions under uncertainty. Our participatory modelling approach is aimed to allow multiple stakeholders to understand trade-offs and interdependencies between social and technical dilemmas, framed by the concept of STS. The use of a dos and don'ts analysis helps to systematise a participatory modelling design process that requires theoretical and methodological frameworks for serious games. It allows us to understand how our methodological approach for conducting research on the resilience of STSs can be improved. Game elements such as role-playing negotiations, digital game elements to visualise decisions and scenarios, and physical elements that represent tensions and conflicts in STSs foster a safe and game-based approach that turns difficult conversations into a simulation of decision-making negotiations.
Our ongoing research in Playing With Uncertainty combines physical and digital elements from serious games to foster community engagement to understand tensions in STSs' investments when planning for a potential disaster. It is intended to increase participants' awareness of multiple perspectives on social and infrastructure tensions. The end goal of our ongoing research is a tested and developed methodology that can be used for resilience challenges in local governance, informing both theory-building and practical application in New Zealand or contexts with similar resilience challenges overseas.

Limitations of the Study
Scientific literature reporting on serious games for resilience in STSs is still rare. The challenges of using game-based approaches remain. This prototype design relies on the possibility to conduct in-person meetings. We acknowledge that the number of people participating, the interaction between participants, and the usability of a game to facilitate engagement between stakeholders are vital aspects in exploring the usefulness of our approach. We have not explored an online version as an alternative. Further systematic implementation and evaluation of the prototype design are needed.

Future Work
The next steps of our research will involve the refinement of our prototype design through further iterations of the game design by experts and practitioners. We will then encourage the participation of stakeholders from local governments, industry members, and community leaders to validate the usability of the methodology as a tool to raise resilience planning awareness. Systematic work for data collection during game sessions needs to be improved. The use of artificial intelligence and automatised tools to highlight, organise, and categorise ideas from the debriefings and participants' conversations could improve qualitative data collection. The methodology has potential practical use as a decision visualisation environment, as John et al. (2020) propose. Future research is also needed on methods to assess the effectiveness of this and similar methodologies.