Humans are living in a moment when, perhaps due to technological innovation, we praise ourselves with the belief of being well-informed, intelligent, wiser, and capable of making even better judgments. Yet people are still unable to address much of the root causes of dysfunctional society and economy: armed conflicts, epidemics, natural disasters, poverty, prejudice, and violent crime.

First and foremost, this book will not solve these problems, and it should not be taken as such. However, when dysfunctionality strikes, many experience disbelief and hopelessness, leading to emotional flatness – an emotional blunting where a person has difficulty feeling emotions and indifference, even to activities/causes they once found necessary. At the junction of dysfunctionality leading to emotional flatness, we suggest resilience and gamification might prove essential in dealing with the volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity in the twenty-first century.

Over half of the population of the world resides in cities. Rapid urbanization has made cities more exposed and vulnerable to a broad spectrum of threats and hazards. To respond to such difficulties, “resilience” has emerged as a significant component of cities’ long-term planning and sustainable development. In fact, emerging paradigms (e.g. “resilient city”) implicitly challenge the ideological principle of stability and resistance to change in sustainable development and long-term success. Moreover, “gamification” is the strategic attempt to enhance systems, services, organizations, and activities by creating similar experiences to those experienced playing games to motivate and engage users in a non-game context. Therefore “resilience-enabled gamification” can be used against “emotional flatness” by encouraging strategic design for resilient people and organizations.

The term “gamification” first appeared online in the context of computer software in 2008 (Walz and Deterding 2015). Gamification did not gain popularity until 2010 (GoogleTrends 2021). However, even before the term came into wide usage, borrowing elements from video games was common, such as learning disabilities (Adelman et al. 1989) and scientific visualization (Rhyne et al. 2000). The term gained wide usage around 2010, and many began to refer to it when incorporating social/reward aspects of games into software development (Mangalindan 2012). This approach captured the attention of venture capitalists, who suggested “many aspects of life could become a game of sorts [and that these games] … would be the best investments to make in the game industry” (Sinanian 2010). Another observed that half of all companies seeking funding for consumer software applications mentioned game design in their presentations (O’Brien 2010).

Soon after, several researchers suggested that they considered gamification closely related to earlier work of adapting game-design elements and techniques to non-game contexts. For example, Deterding et al. surveyed human–computer interaction research that uses game-derived elements for motivation and interface design (Deterding et al. 2011). Meanwhile, Nelson (2012) suggests a connection between the Soviet concept of socialist competition and the American management trend of “fun at work.” Moreover, Fuchs (2012) points out that gamification might be driven by new forms of ludic interfaces such as Wii Remote, Move, and Kinect. Gamification conferences have also retroactively incorporated simulation with Will Wright, designer of the 1989 video game “SimCity (2013)®,” serving as a keynote speaker at the gamification conference, G-Summit 2013.

Organizations have also seen the value of gamification and are enhancing this concept with different platforms. For example, in October 2007, Bunchball (http://www.bunchball.com), backed by Adobe Systems Incorporated, was the first company to provide game mechanics as a service (Taylor 2011). Another example of a gamification services provider is Badgeville. Badgeville launched in late 2010 and raised $15 million in venture-capital funding in its first year of operation (Arrington 2011). Attempts to use games for learning hit the traditional landscape in 2012 when the US Department of Energy co-funded multiple research trials (Rai and Beck 2016), including those addressing consumer behavior (Beck et al. 2017), adapting the format of “programmed learning” into mobile microlearning to experiment with the impacts of gamification in energy usage reduction (Feeney 2017). Moreover, Mazur-Stommen and Farley (2016) suggest that gamification can be used to address climate change and sustainability with surprising results. For example, note that their research “broadened the scope of the kinds of activities we were looking at, beyond utilities and into market-based and education games, which took many forms including card-games (Cool Choices), videogames (Ludwig), and games for mobile devices such as smartphones (Ringorang) … gamification, such as that used in the Opower/Facebook application, whereby the incorporation of game mechanics heightens the experience and/or performance of everyday, real-world activities” (Mazur-Stommen and Farley 2016, p. 9).

Finally, there is a Gamification Research Network (GRN), a communication hub for researchers and students interested in studying the use of game design in non-game contexts. It was launched in November 2010 alongside the call for participation in the 2011, 2013, and 2015 CHI workshops on gamification (http://gamification-research.org/about). It is import to recall that a key fundamental aspect of games is education as well as behavior modification – which is related to resilience. In conclusion, gamification as a concept for solving real-life problems is in the beginning stages, and its future looks bright!

However, building a resilient organization, including a city, requires a holistic approach and the appropriate adoption of knowledge and application of tools during the planning and management process. Several studies aspire to enhance the capacity of city resiliency (https://resilientcitiesnet​work.org). However, few explicitly focus on developing a roadmap (i.e. practical sequential steps) to build a resilient city. Therefore, this book attempts to close this knowledge gap by developing a methodological framework, which involves procedural steps in assisting the planning and management processes for developing a resilient city. The platform proposed in this research is grounded on a theoretical approach called “Resilient Informed Decision-Making Process.” The efficacy of the developed framework and the research is demonstrated through a case applied to two US cities as well as space systems.

Rasmussen and Batstone (1989) suggested that “management and organization … had not kept pace with the sophistication of technology and its complexity. As a result, the frequency and magnitude of organizational failures and the subsequent economic and environmental impacts are increasing at an alarming rate” (p. ii). With this in mind, the authors hope this book can catalyze those in management to promote resilience through gamification to enable informed decision-making. Armed conflicts, epidemics, natural disasters, poverty, prejudice, and violent crime and impacts are increasing at an alarming rate. And while humanity expresses the desire to stop them outright, it appears we don’t have that capability. Perhaps the next best thing is to develop resilient people, organizations, and cities – and in the case of this book, through gamification, we can reduce emotional blunting.

This research should attract policy-makers since they are ultimately responsible for society’s resilience. However, researchers (as well as students and laypersons) should “pay close attention” to how gamification can be used to enhance resilience. With this audience in mind, fourteen chapters have been developed. Chapter 1 sets the stage for the remainder of the book by exploring aspects of general systems theory (i.e. systems science, systems technology, and systems philosophy) as a basis for bridging the gap between systems science and engineering systems to deal more effectively with the increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity of the twenty-first century.

Chapter 2 articulates the many facets of infrastructure systems and the need for resilient critical infrastructure systems for public well-being. The role of cities as centers of human culture and economic activity, as well as the catastrophic and unforeseen events they face (e.g. climate change, disease pandemics, economic fluctuations, and terrorist attacks), are discussed in the context of the need for resilient cities. The notion of resilient critical infrastructure is then explained regarding risks and vulnerabilities faced by cities in the twenty-first century.

Chapter 3 sets the stage for research on creating resilient cities and people through gaming. Resilience is defined in the context of the ability to withstand stress in infrastructure systems as well as “positive adaptation” after a stressful or adverse situation. The general qualities of resilience are then established. The chapter delves into gaming as a powerful tool for creating resilient people, emphasizing the positive impact of gaming on the quality of life.

Chapter 4 introduces the concept of gamification (and serious gaming) and its value and utility, which are explored through cognitive, emotional, and social lenses and issues revolving around critical infrastructure systems design. Gaming cycles (i.e. pre-gaming, gaming, and post-gaming) and the role of expert opinions are discussed to establish foundations for understanding infrastructure systems through gaming, data analysis, and game validation.

Chapter 5 presents the concept of mix game to increase energy system resilience. First, the chapter proposes looking at systems in the context of parts – coupled together; the parts can form systems and these systems can respond to stresses. A mix game is then proposed as an awareness-raising appendix mainly addressing layperson energy stakeholders. The model is simplified for the objective of oriented design for optimal primary energy mixes deliberately designed to avoid the arcane of the nonlinear programming technology. The chapter also discusses serious gaming as means for good energy governance amplified by emerging concepts in complex system governance.

Chapter 6 describes the vital components of the simulation computer game “SimCity (2013).” In this game, a player assumes the role of the mayor of the city, with the central aspect being construction and zoning, which comprises a wide range of responsibilities (e.g. providing the essential facilities, maximizing the service capacities, and otherwise balancing between demand and supply of resources). A player works with an interface containing several buttons corresponding to different features and options. The chapter includes insights regarding the limitations/opportunities of SimCity (2013).

Chapter 7 discusses a proposed platform (i.e. ReIDMP: Resilient Informed Decision-Making Process) for developing resilient cities. An overview of the platform is provided involving the simulation computer game (SimCity (2013)) and the means for analysis and assessment of risk and vulnerability as well as evaluation using the guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). A four-phase approach (i.e. project planning and management, learning by doing through gaming strategy, multi-criteria decision analysis, and object-oriented programming) is then articulated as a means for analyzing technical process and actions required for the realization of resilient critical infrastructure systems.

Chapter 8 discusses three key risk and vulnerability assessment approaches in engineered systems: Rapid Risk Assessment (RRA) as a method for classifying and prioritizing risks in major accidents in processes and related industries, Vulnerability Assessment (VA) as a means for identifying cost-effective countermeasures to deter vulnerabilities and potential threats, and Integrated Regional Risk Assessment (IRRA), a method focused on assessing the risk due to continuous emissions instead of the risk due to major accidents. Each method is viewed as key to contributing to the ReIDMP platform for developing resilient cities.

Chapter 9 focuses on applying multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) through a decision support system (DSS) to support determinations, judgments, and courses of action in an organization or a business. Following a brief introduction to MCDA and DSS in the context of the ReIDMP platform, three primary areas of interest for creating a resilient city are described, along with the proposed actions. Logical Decision® for Windows (LDW) is then used to model each area of interest (i.e. environment, economy, and society) to explore a ranking of proposed actions (alternatives) regarding their associated strategies and targeted objectives. The analysis is then repeated using Intelligent Decision System (IDS) and its enhanced capability to address probability uncertainty, subjective judgments, belief function, and the evidential reasoning approach for attribute aggregation.

Chapter 10 illustrates how a regional network of complex systems can be a representation using object-oriented programming. First, object-oriented programming (OOP) is described as a programming paradigm that uses “objects” to design applications. Then TopEase® is introduced as software that allows the user to manage critical information of focused systems and holistically visualize those entities. The described approach is then applied to a region in the eastern part of the United States (i.e. Hampton Roads) as a case application. TopEase® is used to structure data regarding critical infrastructure systems, components, people, roles, responsibilities, and interdependencies. The research suggests that the TopEase® OOP approach is viable for performing disaster risk analysis for different infrastructure systems, including cyberattacks, industrial accidents, meltdowns, and earthquakes.

Chapter 11 discusses how transforming cities into “resilient cities” is significant. Yet, it remains achievable. The case of a US city (i.e. Norfolk, VA) along with its strategic goals (i.e. Norfolk Resilient Strategy) is used as an example. Norfolk Resilient Strategy goals: (i) designing a coastal community of the future, (ii) creating economic opportunity by advancing efforts to grow existing and new industry sectors, and (iii) advancing initiatives to connect communities, deconcentrate poverty, and strengthen neighborhoods set the foundations. The chapter then discusses how the mentioned goals aided in the development of the ReIDMP platform along with implications, limitations, and potential future research directions.

Chapter 12 attempts to demonstrate the applicability of the ReIDMP platform in assessing risks and vulnerabilities. The City of Portland, Oregon (USA) is used as a case application. Three manuals are used: (i) Manual for the Classification of Prioritization of Risks Due to Major Accidents in Process and Related Industries, (ii) Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Asset Identification and Protection, and (iii) Guidelines for Integrated Risk Assessment and Management in Large Industrial Areas. Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Assessment is also used to evaluate the possible effects of an EMP blast. Analyses and visualization include probabilities, consequences, prioritization, and pollution classification, further validating the adaptability and utility of the ReIDMP platform to transforming cities.

Chapter 13 examines the relationship between smart cities and critical space infrastructure systems. Critical space infrastructure systems encompass several systems (e.g. satellites) whose loss or disruption would significantly impact virtually any nation. This chapter depicts the multidirectional interactions between smart cities and critical space infrastructure. Threat analysis is used to explore possible relationships between smart cities and critical space infrastructure through actions and their possible impact on cities. Several risk scenarios are presented, along with a general risk multimodel that could be used to address risks and their possible impacts on smart cities. The chapter concludes with a call for a “system of systems” approach to the governance of space and smart cities.

Finally, Chapter 14 provides an initial research agenda on gamification for a city’s resilience. The proposed research agenda goes beyond the present research’s limitations to include critical knowledge issues involving ontology, epistemology, methodology, and the nature of human beings. A framework for the purposeful and balanced development of gamification for resilience is provided with several interrelated lines of inquiry along the philosophical, theoretical, axiological, methodological, axiomatic, and applications underpinnings.

The book also includes a glossary of terms often used in gamification and their definitions. In general, explanations of concepts are relevant to the current research. However, the reader might also reference the listed concepts and their meaning elsewhere.

Adrian V. Gheorghe
Norfolk, Virginia, USA

Polinpapilinho F. Katina
Spartanburg, South Carolina, USA

References

1. Adelman, H.S., Lauber, B.A., Nelson, P., & Smith, D.C. (1989). Toward a procedure for minimizing and detecting false positive diagnoses of learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(4), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948902200407
2. Arrington, M. (2011, July 13). Badgeville raises $12 million, celebrates with an infographic. TechCrunch. https://social.techcrunch.com/2011/07/12/badgeville-raises-12-million-celebrates-with-an-infographic/.
3. Beck, A. L., Lakkaraju, K., & Rai, V. (2017). Small is big: Interactive trumps passive information in breaking information barriers and impacting behavioral antecedents. PLOS ONE 12 (1): e0169326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169326.
4. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. et al. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” IN: Proceedings of the 15^th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, pp. 9–15. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040.
5. Feeney, R. (2017). Old tricks are the best tricks: Repurposing programmed instruction in the mobile, digital age. Performance Improvement 56 (5): 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21694.
6. Fuchs, M. (2012). Ludic interfaces: Driver and product of gamification. G|A|M|E Games as Art, Media, Entertainment, 1 (1): 19–26. https://www.gamejournal.it/ludic-interfaces-driver-and-product-of-gamification/.
7. GoogleTrends. (2021). Gamification. Google Trends. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=gamification.
8. Mangalindan, J. (2012, November 12). Play to win: The game-based economy. Fortune Tech.https://fortune.com/2010/09/03/play-to-win-the-game-based-economy/.
9. Mazur-Stommen, S. and Farley, K. (2016). Games for grownups: The role of gamification in climate change and sustainability. Indicia Consulting. http://indiciaconsulting.com/downloads/Games-for-Grownups-Climate-Change-Edition.pdf.
10. Nelson, M.J. (2012). Soviet and American precursors to the gamification of work. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference on – MindTrek ’12, p. 23. AMC Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393138.
11. Rasmussen, J. and Batstone, R. (1989). Why do complex organisational systems fail? World Bank Environmental Working Paper, No. 20. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/535511468766200820/pdf/multi0page.pdf.
12. Rhyne, T.-M., Doenges, P., Hibbard, B. et al. (2000). The impact of computer games on scientific and information visualization (panel session): “If you can’t beat them, join them.” In: Proceedings of the Conference on Visualization ’00, 519–521. IEEE.
13. Sinanian, M. (2010, April 12). The ultimate healthcare reform could be fun and games. VentureBeat. https://venturebeat.com/2010/04/12/healthcare-reform-social-games-gamification/.
14. Taylor, C. (2011). For startups, timing is everything – Just ask Bunchball. The New York Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2011/05/02/02gigaom-for-startups-timing-is-everything-just-ask-bunchb-88664.html?ref=technology%20.
15. Walz, S.P. and Deterding, S. (2015). The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications. MIT Press.