Models, Simulations and Games for Water Management: A Comparative Q-Method Study in The Netherlands and China

This study, published in the journal Water in 2018, examines how policy analysts in the Netherlands and China perceive Models, Simulations and Games (MSG) as instruments for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Drawing on a Q-method design involving 55 senior professionals, 33 in the Netherlands and 22 in China, the research maps competing views on whether MSG should serve data-driven rationalization, stakeholder learning, or transformative change. The central aim is to understand how these perceptions shape the relevance and uptake of MSG-based innovations across two markedly different water governance contexts.

In the Netherlands, five distinct respondent frames emerged. The largest, "bureaucratic alignment" (11 respondents), treats IWRM primarily as the integration of engineering, spatial planning and governance and favors visualization and simulation for coordination while rejecting participatory learning. A "stakeholder interaction" frame (9 respondents) instead emphasizes network governance and serious games as means of fostering cooperation, whereas a small "learning" frame (3 respondents) prioritizes stakeholder learning and local knowledge. Among the remaining Dutch perspectives, one views gaming as valuable for learning yet rejects claims about stakeholder cooperation, while another holds a notably cynical view of the science-policy interface.

Chinese respondents largely converged on centralized, infrastructure-focused governance. The dominant frame, "Doctrine of the Mean" (12 of 22 respondents, all water managers), favors strong central leadership and interagency coordination while rating conflict analysis and stakeholder participation as unimportant. Across the Chinese frames, MSG received low ratings for trust and policy value, with the exception of an "open-minded reformers" group that strongly endorses gaming with real stakeholders. Interviewees frequently argued that participatory Western methods were premature for China's complex, un-parameterized policy environment.

The authors conclude that the Q-method is a practical tool for cross-cultural research, especially where officials are reluctant to speak openly. Dutch actors largely frame MSG as instruments of social learning, system understanding and persuasion, whereas Chinese actors often see them as signals of modernity and political legitimation with limited trust for public engagement. Recognizing and bridging these divergent frames is presented as essential for the relevance and impact of MSG-based cooperation between the two countries.