Table 4 Setup of four gaming events, held inside and outside the location of the scenario map.
Gaming event (event type, date) and case ref. # | #1. Congress Workshop during a research project [2]; 02.2016 | #2. Congress Workshop during a research project [2]; 02.2016 | #3. Smart City day Vienna, 05.2017 | #4. Thematic event “Landluft” on energy transition, Vienna, 03.2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Venue of the game: held inside or outside the case study region? | Inside | Inside | Outside | Outside | |
Which compilation of players was present (Stakeholder classes (Mitchell et al. 1997, p. 21)), attributes: power, legitimacy, urgency [1]) | 4A-stakeholder—3 attributes (7) | 1 regional manager | |||
4B-stakeholder—2 attributes (4,5,6) | 1 mayor (power/legitimacy) 2 local citizens (legitimacy/urgency) | 2 local small water power entrepreneurs (urgency/ legitimacy) | 1 mayor (power/legitimacy) | 1 spatial planner, 1 energy engineer (legitimacy/urgency) | |
4C-stakeholder—1 attribute | 1 expert (legitimacy) | 1 expert (legitimacy) | 1 expert (legitimacy) | 3 energy experts (legitimacy), 3 students (urgency) | |
4D-non-stakeholder (8, no attribute) | 2 mediators from the research project | 2 mediators from the research project | 2 mediators from the research project | 1 mediator from the research project | |
Details on the group compilation—per case ref | We wanted to mix representatives from politics and the civil society. The expert lived outside the region | We wanted to mix representatives from the local economy with an expert (that lived outside the region) | We had no influence on the constellation, because the players could select our game among many other interactive features that were offered at the smart city day | We had no influence on the constellation, because the players could select our game among two other interactive workshop features that were offered at the Landluft event | |