Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

The Green Streets Game : evaluating a collaborative design tool for youth public engagement Kebede, Adam Nov 30, 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-SCARP_2014_gradproject_Kebede.pdf [ 23.75MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0075848.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0075848-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0075848-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0075848-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0075848-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0075848-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0075848-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0075848-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0075848.ris

Full Text

 THE GREEN STREETS GAME: EVALUATING A COLLABORATIVE DESIGN TOOL FOR YOUTH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT  by  ADAM KEBEDE  B.A., The University of British Columbia, 2009  A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF SCIENCE (PLANNING)  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  School of Community and Regional Planning  We accept this project as conforming to the required standard  ......................................................  .....................................................  .....................................................   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 2014 © Adam Kebede, 2014     1 Abstract   Youth engagement processes have traditionally been plagued both by societyʼs often dismissal of youth, and by applying inappropriate engagement strategies and mechanisms. The needs and preferences of young people are different than those of adults, and therefore we cannot assume the same treatment (Talen and Coffindaffer 1999; Terrible 2000). This Masters professional project describes a novel approaches to youth engagement: the “Green Streets Game” (GSG). The GSG is a collaborative, urban design board game that was used in soliciting youth input during the planning of the Point Grey Road-Cornwall Ave Active Transportation Corridor (henceforth: PGCC) between March 2013 and April 2013.  In all, 371 young people, aged 6 – 17, who attended elementary schools and high schools within the studyʼs corridor played the GSG and, thus, were involved in the engagement process.  The goals of this professional project are twofold: (1) to provide an evaluation of both the effectiveness of the GSG as a tool for youth engagement, and, (2) ʻ The Green Streets Game PGCC Youth Engagement Reportʼ capacity to provide actionable information on their active transportation needs and design preferences for the City of Vancouver Engineering Services Department. In total three frameworks of evaluation are used to: I first evaluate whether the GSG has the capacity to effectively address the youth engagement goals of Rowe and Frewerʼs (2005) Typology of Engagement Mechanisms.  Second, I use Frankʼs (2006) Five Lessons for Youth Participation to evaluate if the engagement tool addresses youth needs and preferences. To understand whether the GSG provided the City of Vancouver (CoV) Streets Department with actionable information on local youth active transportation needs, in August 2014 I     2 conducted a focus group with two City of Vancouver planning staff that are were closely involved in the PGCC project.  Based on the evaluation, the GSG was deemed to effectively engage youth, meeting all of Rowe and Frewerʼs engagement goals for the type of information flow model (Type 3 Participation) the GSG was intended to serve.  The game performed moderately well in terms of its effectiveness as a youth engagement tool; it met most of Frankʼs (2005) five lessons, but did not adequately adapt the sociopolitical context towards youth.  In discussions with the two planning staff, it was agreed that the game performed well, but the game did not fully account for the real-life economic and legal constraints to planning new facilities. In conclusion, the staff indicated that the GSG youth report provided “eye opening” feedback and has successfully influenced design outcomes, and continues to inform neighborhood initiatives. Despite certain deficiencies, the evidence indicates the GSG effectively engages youth, suggesting that it could be an effective tool for youth engagement in future planning exercises.   	        3  Table of Contents  ABSTRACT 1	  TABLE OF CONTENTS 3	  TABLE OF TABLES 5	  TABLE OF FIGURES 6	  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7	  INTRODUCTION 8	  EXISTING THEORIES AND PAST RESEARCH 11	  WHY DO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT? 11	  THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF YOUTH IN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 12	  THEORIES ON HOW TO EVALUATE YOUTH ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES 13	  ROWE AND FREWERʼS (2005) TYPOLOGY OF ENGAGEMENT MECHANISMS: 16	  FRANKʼS FIVE LESSONS FOR YOUTH PARTICIPATION 21	  THE ROLE OF GAME PLAY IN YOUTH ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES: 24	  THE POINT GREY ROAD-CORNWALL AVENUE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT 25	  THE GREEN STREETS GAME 27	  EVALUATION METHODS 29	  RESEARCH QUESTION 30	  ROWE AND FREWER: TYPOLOGY OF ENGAGEMENT MECHANISMS 30	  RESULTS 35	      4 EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GSG AS AN ENGAGEMENT TOOL 35	  PARTICIPANT SELECTION: CONTROLLED 35	  ELICITATION FACILITATION: YES 35	  RESPONSE MODE: OPEN 36	  INFORMATION INPUT: FLEXIBLE 39	  MEDIUM OF INFORMATION TRANSFER: FACE-TO-FACE 39	  FACILITATION OF AGGREGATION: STRUCTURED 39	  EVALUATING HOW SUCCESSFULLY THE GSG ENGAGED YOUTH 40	  FOCUS GROUP RESULTS 50	  MEMORABLE FOCUS GROUP QUOTES: 51	  DISCUSSION 55	  SUMMARY: 55	  LIMITATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED: 60	  CONCLUSION 63	  APPENDIX A 64	  APPENDIX B 67	  APPENDIX C 68	  WORKS CITED 69	  APPENDIX E: GSG FACILITATOR HANDBOOK 75	        5  Table of Tables  TABLE	  1:	  REALMS	  OF	  PUBLIC	  ENGAGEMENT	  	  (ADAPTED	  FROM	  ROWE	  AND	  FREWER-­‐2005)	   18	  	  TABLE	  2:	  MECHANISM	  VARIABLES	  OF	  ENGAGEMENT	  	  PROCESSES	  (ADAPTED	  FROM	  ROWE	  AND	  FREWER-­‐2005)	   19	  	  TABLE	  3:	  FRANK’S	  FIVE	  LESSONS	  FOR	  YOUTH	  PARTICIPATION	  EVALUATIVE	  FRAMEWORK	  	  (ADAPTED	  FROM	  FRANK	  2006)	   23	  	  TABLE	  4:	  CHARACTERISTICS	  OF	  PARTICIPATION	  TYPE	  3,	  	  THE	  CHOSEN	  ENGAGEMENT	  MECHANISM	  FOR	  THE	  GSG	  EVALUATION	   32	  	  TABLE	  5:	  CONGRUENCY	  &	  INCONGRUENCE	  OF	  THE	  GSG	  TO	  ROWE	  AND	  	  FREWER’S	  (2005)	  MECHANISM	  VARIABLES	   33	  	  TABLE	  6:	  EVALUATING	  THE	  EFFECTIVENESS	  OF	  THE	  GSG	  	  ACCORDING	  TO	  ROWE	  AND	  FREWER	  (2005)	   41	  	  TABLE	  7:	  SUMMARY	  OF	  THE	  GSG’S	  ADHERENCE	  TO	  	  FRANK’S	  LESSONS	  FOR	  YOUTH	  PARTICIPATION	   42	  	  TABLE	  8	  EVALUATION	  OF	  YOUTH	  ENGAGEMENT	  EFFECTIVENESS	  	  (LESSON	  1:	  GIVING	  RESPONSIBILITY	  AND	  VOICE)	   44	  	  TABLE	  9:	  EVALUATION	  OF	  YOUTH	  ENGAGEMENT	  EFFECTIVENESS	  	  (LESSON	  2:	  BUILD	  CAPACITY)	   45	  	  TABLE	  10:	  EVALUATION	  OF	  YOUTH	  ENGAGEMENT	  EFFECTIVENESS	  	  (LESSON	  3:	  ENCOURAGING	  YOUTHFUL	  STYLES)	   46	  	  TABLE	  11:	  EVALUATION	  OF	  YOUTH	  ENGAGEMENT	  EFFECTIVENESS	  	  (LESSON	  4:	  INVOLVING	  ADULTS)	   47	  	  TABLE	  12:	  EVALUATION	  OF	  YOUTH	  ENGAGEMENT	  EFFECTIVENESS	  	  (LESSON	  5:	  ADAPTING	  THE	  SOCIOPOLITICAL	  CONTEXT)	   48	  	  TABLE	  14	  FOCUS	  GROUP	  SWOT	  ANALYSIS	   52	  	  TABLE	  15	  KEY	  ENGAGEMENT	  MECHANISMS	  	  ADAPTED	  FROM	  ROWE	  AND	  FREWER	  (2005)	   64	       6   Table of Figures  FIGURE	  1:	  ROGER	  HART’S	  LADDER	  OF	  YOUTH	  PEOPLE	  PARTICIPATION .................................................................... 14	  FIGURE	  2:	  MAP	  OF	  PGCC	  PLAN................................................................................................................................... 25	  FIGURE	  3:	  STUDY	  AREA	  AND	  PARTICIPATING	  SCHOOLS............................................................................................. 26	  FIGURE	  4:	  PGCC	  YOUTH	  PARTICIPANTS	  METRICS ...................................................................................................... 27	  FIGURE	  5:	  TEAM	  BOARD............................................................................................................................................. 28	  FIGURE	  6:	  EXCERPT	  FROM	  THE	  GSG	  FACILITATOR	  HANDBOOK:	  ‘INTRO	  &	  BRAINSTORM’ ........................................ 36	  FIGURE	  7:	  EXCERPT	  FROM	  THE	  GSG	  FACILITATOR	  HANDBOOK:	  ‘MINI-­‐STREET	  DESIGN’ ........................................... 37	  FIGURE	  8:	  GSG	  SAMPLE	  SCENARIO	  CARD................................................................................................................... 38	  FIGURE	  9:	  	  GSG	  EXAMPLE	  OF	  STRUCTURED	  AGGREGATION ...................................................................................... 38	  FIGURE	  10:	  GSG	  GAMEPLAY	  SUMMARY-­‐INFOGRAPHIC	   ............................................................................................ 43	  FIGURE	  11A:	  PGCC	  YOUTH	  PREFERENCES	  BY	  OVERALL	  THEMES ............................................................................... 56	  FIGURE	  11B:	  PGCC	  YOUTH	  ‘FUN,	  SAFE,	  AND	  EASY’	  DESIGN	  PREFERENCES................................................................ 57	  FIGURE	  11C:	  PGCC	  YOUTH	  ‘FUN,	  SAFE,	  AND	  EASY’	  TECHNICAL	  DESIGN	  PREFERENCES............................................. 57	  FIGURE	  12:	  TOP	  RANKED	  DESIGN	  FEATURES	  FOR	  BIKE	  ROUTES ................................................................................ 59	  FIGURE	  13:	  FIGURE	  12:	  TOP	  RANKED	  DESIGN	  FEATURES	  FOR	  BIKE	  ROUTES ............................................................. 59	  FIGURE	  14:	  COOL	  DESIGN	  RECOMMENDATIONS	   ...................................................................................................... 60	        7  Acknowledgements   I would like to express my gratitude to the staff, faculty, and my fellow classmates at SCARP.  In particular, I want to thank Dr. Maged Senbel for his encouragement and support. I would like to also thank Leonard Machler, who is a great friend, is always willing to help, and gives the best suggestions. I am also grateful for the support so generously given by Patti Toporowski and Dr. Penny Gurstein.   I am thankful for the invaluably constructive criticism and generosity provided my second readers, Arthur Orsini and Patrick Y. Foong Chan.  I also would like to acknowledge Marnie McGregor and Dhaneva Panday for taking risks on creative public engagement. My appreciation also goes out to the Green Streets Team – Julien Thomas, Dr. Natalia Delgado, Sarah Cullingham, and Maya MacDonald – for their friendship and collaborative spirits.  I want to also offer further gratitude to my friends Gabi Esser, Ian Yen, Theresa Fresco Leonard Machler, Tim Shah, Sean Tynan, Tamara White, Peer-Daniel Krause and many others for their support, insights and inspiration.  A very special thanks is owed to my family-my brother, sister, mother and father- for their moral and financial support – Thank You.        8  Introduction  Youth engagement processes have traditionally been plagued both by societyʼs often dismissal of youth, and by applying inappropriate engagement strategies and mechanisms. The needs and preferences of young people are different than those of adults, and therefore we cannot assume the same treatment (Talen and Coffindaffer 1999; Terrible 2000).  For instance, youth tend to have a greater affinity for nature, “and favor interaction, diversity, and accessibility” (Talen and Coffindaffer 1999; Frank 2006). Moreover, if public engagement processes neglect to account for these differences between youth and adults, cities risk marginalizing young people from accessing public spaces and limit their mobility (Lennard and Lennard 2000; Meucci and Redmon 1997; Tonucci and Rissotto 2001; White 2001).  Canadian youth are becoming increasingly sedentary (Bruce and Katzmarzyk, 2002; Craig et al., 1999). The role of active transportation dramatically increases physical activity, which helps reduces obesity and the onset of type II diabetes among people under 18 (Appleyard, 2003; Anon, 1993; Cooper et al, 2003; Boarnet, 2005). If municipalities can adapt their public engagement process to meet the unique needs of youth, better health outcomes may be more achievable.  While youth engagement strategies in active transport planning remain relatively underdeveloped, the City of Vancouver has recognized the need to engage younger people in planning processes, and has sought outside assistance in designing novel approaches to youth engagement.    Canadian youth are becoming increasingly sedentary (Bruce and Katzmarzyk, 2002; Craig et al., 1999). The role of active transportation dramatically increases physical     9 activity, which helps reduces obesity and the onset of type II diabetes among people under 18 (Appleyard, 2003; Anon, 1993; Cooper et al, 2003; Boarnet, 2005). If municipalities can adapt their public engagement process to meet the unique needs of youth, better health outcomes may be more achievable.  While youth engagement strategies in active transport planning remain relatively underdeveloped, the City of Vancouver has recognized the need to engage younger people in planning processes, and has sought outside assistance in designing novel approaches to youth engagement.    This Masters professional project describes one such initiative: the “Green Streets Game” (GSG).  The GSG is a collaborative, urban design board game that was used in soliciting youth input during the planning of the Point Grey Road-Cornwall Ave Active Transportation Corridor (henceforth: PGCC) between March 2013 and April 2013.  In all, 371 young people, aged 6 – 17, who attended elementary schools and high schools within the studyʼs corridor played the GSG and, thus, were involved in the engagement process.  The goals of this professional project are twofold: (1) to provide an evaluation of both the effectiveness of the GSG as a tool for youth engagement, and, (2) the ʻGreen Streets Game PGCC Youth Engagement Reportʼs capacity to provide actionable information on their active transportation needs and design preferences for the City of Vancouver Engineering Services Department. The project also afforded the opportunity to document the GSG gameplay (please see Appendix E: GSG Facilitator Handbook). With respect to the first goal – evaluating the GSGs effectiveness as a youth engagement tool – two frameworks of evaluation are used: I first evaluate whether the GSG has the capacity to effectively address the youth engagement goals of Rowe and Frewerʼs (2008) Typology of Engagement Mechanisms.  Secondly, I use Frankʼs (2006)     10 Five Lessons for Youth Participation to evaluate if the engagement tool addresses youth needs and preferences. To understand whether the GSG provided the City of Vancouver (CoV) Streets Department with actionable information on local youth active transportation needs, in August 2014 I conducted a focus group with two City of Vancouver planning staff that are were closely involved in the PGCC project.  Based on the evaluation, the GSG was deemed to effectively engage youth, meeting all of Rowe and Frewerʼs engagement goals for the type of information flow model (Type 3 Participation) the GSG was intended to serve.  The game performed moderately well in terms of its effectiveness as a youth engagement tool; it met most of Frankʼs (2006) five lessons, but did not adequately adapt the sociopolitical context towards youth.  In discussions with the two planning staff, it was agreed that the game performed well, but the game did not fully account for the real-life economic and legal constraints to planning new facilities. In conclusion, the staff indicated that the GSG youth report provided “eye opening” feedback and has successfully influenced design outcomes, and continues to inform neighborhood initiatives. Despite certain deficiencies, the evidence indicates the GSG effectively engages youth, suggesting that it could be an effective tool for youth engagement in future planning exercises.         11  Existing Theories and Past Research   Why do public engagement?  While, decision-making in planning has been traditionally seen as a top-down, centralized, activity carried out by public officials (Krek, 2005), soliciting citizen engagement has long been identified as an important element in urban plan-making, since the plans invariably affect the lives of the citizens who live in a community (See Arnsteinʼs ladder of citizen participation Arnstein, 1969). IAP2, Fochler and Felt, and Hashengan identify at least two systems, one of community and governance (Haslett, 2012). The International Association For Public Participation  (IAP2), Fochler and Felt, and Hashengan definition of engagement identify at least two systems, one of community and governance. Moreover, they express the role of engagement as facilitating interaction between these systems. Hashagen, for instance, argues the term “engagement” suggests a different sort of relationship between two systems, “a ʻgovernanceʼ system and a ʻcommunityʼ system” (2002).  Acknowledging a community is a system composed of a palimpsest of social infrastructure is fundamental part of enabling productive interactions between the community and governance systems (Hashengen, 2002; Folcher and Felt, 2010). Fochler and Felt warns that an oversimplified ʼpublic,ʼ or community(s), is vulnerable to political machineries manufacturing ʻpublics-at-largeʻ (2010). In other words, public engagement would fall back into the trap of the well-entrenched “linear model of science communication and its embedded values” that it “was hailed for breaking” (Fochler and Felt, 2010).  IAP2ʼs definition of engagement is explicitly wary of machined engagement processes and takes preventative measures by codifying its process with respect to engagement definitions, goals, clear sponsor commitments, public expectations and examples. The     12 association defines engagement within the concept of community governance, the “effective involvement and empowerment of local community representatives” in decision-making (AOHC, 2006). Accordingly, engagement is a method that enables community governance through processes “involving citizens at various levels of participation based on interpersonal communication and trust, and a common understanding and purpose.”   There are ethical and pragmatic reasons for an engaged relationship between the community system and governance system. In Kitchen Table Sustainability, Sarkissian (2008) provides two reasons for community engagement:  1) It is ethical: In democratic society, those whose livelihoods, environments, and lives are at stake should be consulted and involved in the decisions that affect them directly.  2) It is pragmatic: Support for programs and policies often depend on peopleʼs willingness to assist the process. It is also often necessary because ʻ if planners will not involve the citizens will involve themselvesʼ.   The Special Needs of Youth in Public Engagement  Youth is a transitional life stage between childhood and adult stage. The use of age-based criteria or biological and psychological factors in defining youth is challenging, for it is widely inconsistent across the literature and in professional practice (Furstenberg, 2000; Galland, 2003; Gauthier, 2000: UN-Habitat, 2012).  At the City of Vancouver (CoV), for instance, a person is considered a youth depending on the programming or policy context (i.e. recreational services, justice system, employment services) and subsequently the consideration of this life stage vary tremendously and may include those aged 9-24, 13-24, or 15-24 (COV, 2009). Overall, there are a multitude of factors that affect the transition in and out of the life stage ʻyouthʼ (Elder et al., 2005).  For     13 practical purposes, this professional project engaged with individuals in high school, and younger, and therefore included people aged 18 and below.  The literature on youth engagement is much less developed than that of public engagement in general, perhaps because people under the age of 18 are just one subgroup of people with whom planners can engage.  But engagement considerations that are unique to youth should be considered separately from those engagement considerations used on adult members, “the gap between the demands of planning processes and young peopleʼs capabilities by building youth knowledge, skills, and confidence”(Baldassori et al. 1987; Lorenzo 1997: Checkoway et al. 2003). Moreover, the normative sociopolitical system is adult-centric and adaptation to a youth-friendly context is critical to effectively serve the needs of this demographic (Alparone and Rissotto 2001; Corsi 2002; Horelli and Kaaja 2002).  Theories on how to Evaluate Youth Engagement Processes  There are several theories on what constitutes “good” youth engagement, and these criteria can be used to evaluate whether an engagement process was successful. Paying homage to, Arnsteinʼs (1969) “ladder of participation”, Roger Hartʼs (1992) “Ladder of Young People Participation” (see Figure 1: Roger Hartʼs Ladder of Youth People Participation) puts forth a framework for identifying a continuum of youth participation (Shier 2001).  Hartʼs continuum identifies a threshold and eight “rungs” of participation, with any process below the fourth rung – young people assigned and informed – identified as tokenistic, and disqualified as “participation.”  Hartʼs model has been used extensively in youth engagement processes to help practitioners to identify, and eliminate, “non-participation” in their own practice (Shier 2001).       14 Figure 1: Roger Hartʼs Ladder of Youth People Participation   Hartʼs model has, however, come under criticism. Criticism includes the notion that “Hartʼs ladder is bestowing of rights to the powerless and passive child by the powerful adult, an outdated model of rights.” (Montgomery, 2009). Franks (2011) remarks that the image of a ladder is unfortunate because “utilizes a hierarchical and non-participatory instrument in order to measure participation.” Therefore, the structure implies a ʻhierarchy of valuesʼ that conflates higher degree of youth participation with optimal youth engagement (Franks, 2011; Reddy and Ratna, 2002;Hart et al, 2004). Orsini (2010) illustrates there are “valid instances where each of the participatory levels can Adapted from Hart, R. (1992). Childrenʼs Participation from Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, as cited in www.freechild.org/ladder.htm      15 provide” an appropriate level of participation or engagement.  For instance, young people assigned and informed (Hartʼs 4th rung), provides an appropriate level of participation for a ʻSchool Walk Around-ʼ whereby students are given a task to assess the traffic and safety conditions around their school. Higher rungs, where youth and adults are equals and jointly construct plans may be unnecessary, since the purpose of a school walk around is for students to use their local knowledge to inform adult planners of the issues that affect them before coming up with an action strategy.  In this case, a “requirement” for youth and adults to jointly build knowledge would be unnecessary to the original task.   Participatory Action Research (PAR) is considered among the ʻbest practicesʼ for youth evaluative frameworks (Cathy and Nancy, Pereira 2011: Stephens, 2009). PAR engages participant youth as co-evaluators, or co-inquirers, of the engagement process, and this relationship continues until the final outcome of the project is delivered (Stephens, 2009; Baezconde-Garbanati, 2013). Process-oriented engagement models, like the Empowering Education Model (EEM), illustrate the value and challenge of PAR. EEM is a pedagogical framework that stresses reaching process goals, such as building self esteem subjects who are involved for process-oriented goals, such as: building self-esteem and new understandings/perspectives, rather than outcome-oriented goals, such as built improvements or policy changes (Freire, 1970).  Freire (1970) considers process-oriented goals to enact deeper, and more lasting social change compared to processes that are more outcome-oriented, but the challenge with process-oriented processes is that engagement processes can become very long term commitments, with many steps along the way, such as building self-esteem or participation in community organizing efforts (Wallerstein and Bernstein, 1988).       16  Rowe and Frewer’s (2005) Typology of Engagement Mechanisms:   Hartʼs (1972) model has been deconstructed by Orsini (2010) because the metaphor implies a hierarchy to youth engagement processes, and that there is a “right” way of doing engagement.  While there may be no one “right” way to engage the public, what framework exists that can provide guidance on whether an engagement style might be better than another in a certain context?  Rowe and Frewer (2005) come perhaps the closest to providing this guidance with their Typology of Engagement Mechanisms.  Central to Rowe and Frewerʼs framework is a definitional understanding of what engagement is: engagement to Rowe and Frewer is the flow of information between a public and a sponsor.  The direction of information flow – whether primarily from the sponsor to the public, or from the public back to the sponsor, or bi-directional – defines the engagement realm (see Table 1).  Only after the engagement realm has been identified based on the flow of information (also known as the ʻInformation Flow Modelʼ, or IFM), can an appropriate mechanism (see Appendix A) be identified.  The mechanism, or tool of engagement, can then be evaluated according to certain “mechanism variables” (Table 2).  These are criteria that directly relate to the goals of the engagement process.  If the goals are known, each tool can be assessed as to whether it is congruent or incongruent with the mechanism variables of the engagement process.  This stepwise procedure to identifying an appropriate tool, and to evaluating the tool according to the goal of the overall engagement process, was the most robust procedure for assessing the efficacy of public engagement processes that I encountered     17 in my search of the literature.  For this reason, I have chosen to use Rowe and Frewerʼs (2005) model as the framework for evaluating the GSG.  More detail on how Rowe and Frewerʼs framework was applied is detailed in Section 4 (see ʻEvaluation Methodsʼ).     18 Table 1: Realms of Public Engagement (Adapted from Rowe and Frewer-2005) Public Engagement Realm Information Flow Model (IFM) Description Public Communication   One-way flow of information from the sponsor to the public (e.g. Radio broadcasts, Cable TV (not interactive) Drop-in centers (open-house, drop-in center, one-stop shop, first-stop shop, exhibitions). Public Consultation  One-way flow of information from the public to the sponsor (e.g. Focus group Open space Opinion poll Referendum (various types) Study circle Survey Telepolling/Televoting) Public Participation  Information flows both directions and the content of the information changes in response to the information (e.g. Citizensʼ jury Consensus conference Deliberative opinion poll Negotiated rulemaking Planning cell Task force).      19 Table 2: Mechanism Variables of Engagement Processes (Adapted from Rowe and Frewer-2005) Mechanism Variables Levels of Variable Definition Example Selection Method:  Uncontrolled or Controlled Selection In controlled selection, both the number and relevance of those engaged may be determined (in theory), whereas in uncontrolled selection, this is not the case, and even if the actively engaged are higher in number, many of these may be inappropriate (the sample may be biased). As such, controlled selection may be more likely to maximize the relevant population. Controlled Selection: referenda (consultation), and citizen juries (participation). Uncontrolled Selection: include drop-in centers (communication),  Elicitation Facilitation: Yes, No or NA Each active participant in an engagement exercise can be considered to possess a quantity of relevant information regarding the problem in hand (whether this is knowledge or simply an opinion) as well as other information of no relevance. An effective exercise needs to elicit all relevant information from each active participant while not eliciting irrelevant or spurious information. Should appropriate information remain unelicited or be confounded or confused by irrelevant information, effectiveness will be negatively affected. Yes:  focus groups and citizen juries. No: co-option and public meetings. NA: Information broadcasts (“publicity” via television, newspaper, and/or radio) Response Mode: Open, Closed, or NA Mechanisms that only allow respondents to choose among two or more options (e.g., referenda or a survey requiring ratings on a scale or set questions) are “closed,” whereas those that allow free responses (e.g., focus groups and conferences) are “open.” Closed:  referenda or a survey requiring ratings on a scale or set questions. Open: Focus Group, NA: Radio Broadcast     20   Continued-Table 2: Mechanism Variables of Engagement Processes (Adapted from Rowe and Frewer-2005) Mechanism Variables Levels of Variable Definition Example Information Input:  Set, Flexible, or NA The sponsors responsible for initiating engagement exercises invariably assume that any information provided by them is relevant, comprehensive, and appropriate for public understanding and decision-making. Flexible information inputs may be more likely to result in maximized relevant sponsor information than set-information mechanisms, in the sense that they enable the public participants to identify holes in the information and to clarify uncertainties (e.g., when the information is full of technical jargon).  Set: newsletters and leaflets.  Flexible:  telephone hotlines and public meetings. NA: Opinion poll, Referendum, Survey, Telepolling/voting Medium of Information Transfer: Face-to-Face (FTF) or Non-Face-to-Face (Non-FTF) The aim of engagement is to acquire all relevant information from all relevant members of the population (sources) and transfer this to relevant recipients (be these the sponsors or the participants). A mark of the efficiency of transfer is whether the recipients fully understand that information (i.e., process it). The most significant variable in this respect is the medium of inform- motion transfer.  There are advantages and disadvantages to FTF and Non-FTF. FTF: Focus group, Information Centers. Non-FTF: hotline/helpline,  teleconferencing, mailed surveys Facilitation of Aggregation: NA, Unstructured, or Structured  The aggregation process is structured following certain rules (even if certain data are discarded, there is generally a need to justify this). On the other hand, when values are elicited from groups, the output itself represents an aggregation performed within and by the group. It is unstructured in the sense that no clear rules are set out and followed, and equity, or input from all participants, is not guaranteed. Structured: brainstorming, causal impact diagrams, ranking, timelines, community maps. Unstructured: no clear rules are set out and followed.       21 Frank’s Five Lessons for Youth Participation  Apart from evaluating whether engagement processes was effective, it is also important to understand whether this engagement process was particularly effective at engaging youth. Results-Based Management (RBM) frameworks are traditionally “positivist in their leaning, focusing on fixed, controlled designs, quantitative data, objective analysis, and linear attribution (cause and effect) between activities and desired outcomes” (Stephens 2009). While funders tend to prefer the tangible and quotableʼ results, “attitudinal or behavioral shifts inherent in public engagement” has poorly captured by RBM frameworks (Stephens 2009).  Theories on Participatory Action Research (PAR) describe how to evaluate engagement processes as they are occurring. PAR posits that “a system of inquiry, and power are bound up together” (Pine, 2008); thus, reality is discursive and when a participative mind articulates their reality, they are articulating “the paradigm itself, and can, in principle, reach out to the wider context of that paradigm to reframe it” (Heron and Reason, 1997). Therefore to measure effectiveness at the pre-planning stage, and throughout the process, participants must be incorporated into iterative evaluative processes like “experience, reflection, [learning-by-doing] and action planning” (Stephens 2009).    However, PAR does not provide a template for evaluating engagement effectiveness after an engagement strategy has concluded. The CoV requested evaluative metrics that transparently communicated engagement outcomes related to the youth design preferences and quantity of local youth engaged. Since the GSGʼs effectiveness as an a youth engagement tool was beyond the scope CoV contract, and only considered by author after gameplay ended, a framework for doing post-game evaluation was necessary.  Additionally, a framework was needed that assessed how actively youth were engaged, as opposed to how well a general public (presumably adults).  Frank (2006) provides some guidance on how to engage youth.  Frank defines youth as either     22 “18 years old or younger” or “the ages typically enrolled in elementary, middle, and high school grades” (2006); and summarizes the findings of “direct-observation studies of youth participation in community and environmental planning,”(2006) from which identifies five “lessons” – or procedural practices – for evaluating whether youth were empowered in processes (Table 3).   Frank argues that conventional sociopolitical contexts are not oriented towards youth engagement; so adapting the context to youth participation is critical.  To do so, she encourages “youthful styles” of participation, which elicit deeper engagement and tends to facilitate dynamic, interactive, social, expressive, challenging, and constructive environments. Giving ʻgreater responsibility and voice,ʼ or autonomy, to youth tends to ignite intrinsic motivations and further enhances their participation. The roles of adults in these processes include providing advocacy for youth voices when confronted by non-receptive decision-makers, accessing resources, and building youth competencies. Youth competencies can be augmented, for instance, by guided walking tours informing deficient neighborhood knowledge due to a “lack of independent mobility” or teach strategies to exercises a balance of creativity and reality (Frank, 2006).  Franksʼ (2006) framework for evaluating how successfully youth were engaged was chosen because it is specific to youth engagement, and because it is suitable for evaluating processes that happened in the past. More detail on how Franksʼ framework was applied is detailed in Section 4 (see ʻEvaluation Methodsʼ). .    23  Table 3: Frankʼs Five Lessons for Youth Participation Evaluative Framework (Adapted from Frank 2006) Lessons for Youth Participation Procedural Questions Give Responsibility & Voice How did adults share power? How did adults recognize youth capabilities?     Build Capacity How was youth knowledge augmented? How were youth skills augmented?  How was youth confidence augmented?    Encourage Youthful Styles How were youth socially engaged? - dynamically engaged? - interactively engaged? - expressively engaged? - constructively engaged? - challenged to learn? Involve Adults How were adults involved?      Adapt the Sociopolitical Context (Pre, Intra, & post)  Did the sociopolitical context adapt? If so, how? If not, what were weaknesses? If not, what were the barriers?         24 The Role of Game Play in Youth Engagement Processes:  Games are an opportunity to solve problems and encourage capacity building in an inclusive manner (Thatcher, 1990). This is because games are an abstraction of reality whereby complex systems are easier to explore and opportunities to try unfamiliar solutions are riskless (Kapp, 2012; Novak and Hoffman, 2009). Accordingly, this medium is a treasure trove of tools for individual and community development (Barta and Schaelling, 1998). For instance, a game is a shared experience, and thus it can reinforce relationships and bridge gaps between playersʼ divergent lived-experiences (Skoumpourdi and Kalavassis, 2007). With respect to inclusive decision-making, in collaborative games all players s “are unified and share the rewards or penalties of their decisions” (Delgado, 2014). Thus promoting strategies that demands collaborative decisions (Radner & Marschak,1972; Zagal et al., 2006).  A strong indicator of effective game design is enabling an immersive and effortless state of focused engagement known as ʻFlowʼ (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).  Game mechanics enable players to ʻFlowʼ carefully balanced intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Lepper, 1988). Game mechanics are the ʻcomponentsʼ of a game such as turns, cards, scenario, aesthetics, points, and leaderboards. Particular configuration of game mechanics where increasing player competence is by matched increasing challenge (Kapp ,2012).  A curve of interest illustrates this degree of focused engagement a player experiences throughout the gameplay (Kapp, 2012). This is because a player cannot maintain focused play, if a gameplayʼs level of interest is not stable or increasing (Kapp, 2012). Thus this descriptive model is helpful in mapping the careful application of game thinking through the gameplay.      25  The Point Grey Road-Cornwall Avenue Active Transportation Corridor Project  The CoVʼs Greenest City 2020 Action Plan and Transportation 2040 outline the need to increase the number of trips made by foot, bike, and transit and informs the PPGCC project. Figure 2 & Figure 3 provides maps of the PGCC plan. The PGCC project aimed to create a safe, convenient and comfortable connection for pedestrians and cyclists between Burrard Bridge and Jericho Beach. Public consultation occurred between January and May 2013. Council approved of the project in July 2014 and construction was complete by April 2014. The CoV sought public input regarding design preferences, and route selection. The GSG was implemented between March and April of 2013 as part of a parallel youth focused engagement process. Council approved of the project in July 2014 and construction was complete by April 2014. The final design provides a continuous connection between the Burrard Bridge and Jericho Beach through the Specific Study Areas:  (1) Point Grey Rd West of Alma (2a) Point Grey Rd (Alma to Macdonald St.) option a  (2b) Point Grey Rd (Alma to Macdonald St.) option b (3) Point Grey Rd: Macdonald to Balsam (4) York Ave: Stephens to Chestnut (5) Burrard/Cornwall Intersection (*) Seaside Greenway  Figure 2: Map of PGCC Plan  Source: Active Transportation Corridor: Seaside Greenway Completion and York Bikeway (Phase 1 of Point Grey-Cornwall Active Transportation Corridor) - 10182 Final staff report (July 23, 2013) July 16, 2013     26 extension and creation of the Seaside Greenway and York Bikeway. Design interventions included road closures, separated bike lanes, new walk/bike signal, signage, and wider sidewalks.    More importantly, the CoV outlined certain public engagement goals it wished to fulfill during the public consultation process.  Namely, any engagement tool had to provide CoV staff with “actionable” information – information that they could easily turn into a buildable design element.  It also had to comprehensively engage youth from the surrounding area on alternative street designs.  However, what was missing was a method for evaluating whether youth were comprehensively engaged.     Figure 3: Study Area and Participating Schools     27  The Green Streets Game    The GSG is a collaborative public space board game that was implemented as part of the PGCC youth engagement strategy. GSG carefully applies game thinking to make active transportation design elements and concepts accessible and promote inclusive decision-making through a collaborative process. The game is collaborative by design; reaching consensus is engineered as the best way to win and all players share in the rewards and risks. A participant-driven design, players brainstorm to determine the “win” scenario in teams and imagine how neighborhood streets should be redesigned.  As individuals, players then vote for their preferred design.  The CoV sought feedback from local youths regarding their active transportation needs and aspirations or ʻFun, Safe, and Easyʼ design principles expressed their design preferences by redesigning ʻboardsʼ or neighborhood ʻmapsʼ containing local street typologies (Fig. 5). 371 local youth attending Kitsilano Secondary, Bayview Elementary, General Gordon Elementary and Henry Hudson Elementary (Figure 4 & Figure 3). A summary of the redesigned maps was then compiled and described in a report to decision-makers.  Figure 4: PGCC Youth Participants Metrics Source: Green Streets Game Team. Point Grey-Cornwall Active Transportation Project, Summary of Findings: Children and Youth Engagement. Prepared for City of Vancouver Engineering Services Department. April 8th 2013.      28 Figure 5: Team Board     29   Evaluation Methods     The purpose of this project was to evaluate whether the GSG comprehensively engaged youth and provided the CoV with actionable information for the PGCC planning process. These were the engagement goals of the PGCC planning process, established by the CoV at the outset of the planning process. Ideally the evaluative frameworks should include the active and early participation of local youth, but the decision to evaluate the application of the GSG to the PGCC occurred post-engagement. Accordingly I will do the following to evaluate the overall research goals;   1. The first analytical framework I will use is Rowe and Frewerʼs Typology of Engagement Mechanisms. Their typology provides a rubric and thus evaluative framework that will determine the ʻeffectivenessʼ of the GSG at facilitating a flow of information, between the CoV and local youth that addresses the PGCC project youth engagement goals. Research Question Was the Green Street Game successful at satisfying the Point Grey-Cornwall Corridor Project’s youth engagement goals?   Goal 1) Did the GSG comprehensively engage youth on alternative street design? a. provide a valuable learning opportunity? b. support youth decision-making?  Goal 2) Provide the City of Vancouver with actionable information derived from the workshops with youth. a. Did the GSG provide CoV staff with actionable information?  b. Did the GSG report influence the PGCC project?       30    2. Subsequent evaluations will address the research questions separately and sequentially. To evaluate the first of the CoV goals two frameworks will be employed; I use Frankʼ (2006) Five Lessons for Youth Participation to evaluate how well youth were engaged and the potential short-term impact of those decisions;  3. A SWOT analysis informed by a focus group with planners involved in PGCC Corrdor will address the second research question: whether GSG reports provide the CoV with actionable information.  Rowe and Frewer: Typology of Engagement Mechanisms   As mentioned in Section 2 (see Existing Theories and Past Research), Rowe and Frewer ʻs (2008) typology of engagement mechanisms is used to determine how ʻeffectiveʼ the GSG is at facilitating a flow of information between the CoV and local youth.  The purpose of this evaluation is to see whether the PGCC project addressed the CoVʼs youth engagement goals. As previously mentioned, Rowe and Frewerʼs framework was selected because it identifies the appropriate engagement tools to meet certain contexts, and provides a useful rubric for evaluating whether the tool was effective in that context.  Based on the goal of providing a valuable learning opportunity for area youth, and building the capacity for youth decision-making (see Research Question box), Rowe and Frewerʼs (Table 1), or “public participation”, would best apply to the youth engagement goals of the CoV.  Public participation is characterized by a two-way flow of information from the sponsor (the City) and the public (the youth of the PGCC).       31  In the next step, I compared the GSGʼs mechanism variables to the information flow models of the 14 classes of mechanisms. If the information flow model variables of the GSG are consistent with ʻtype 3 participationʼ and incongruent with the remaining classes, the mechanism had the capacity to effectively address the youth engagement goals.  The results are summarized in Table 5, where each of the 14 mechanism classes is assessed by their congruence/incongruence to each of the mechanism variables.  I determined that participation should be limited to those knowledgeable of youth active transportation design preferences, thus the “public” should be limited in scope to local youth. Again since local youth contain relevant information “elicitation facilitation” should be conducted. The engagement goal of ʻcomprehensive engagementʼ would be served by an open response mode.  Providing a valuable learning experience meant clarifying misunderstanding and jargon, and therefore a flexible information input would best serve the participants by maximizing relevant information. A valuable learning experience would be maximized by face-to-face engagement, as it would ensure “whether the recipients fully understand [the] information.” Finally providing actionable information required information to be summarized and represented in consistent manner: thus aggregated in a structured manner.  It was determined that Participation Type 3 met all of Rowe and Frewerʼs mechanism variables, and was the appropriate engagement mechanism by which to evaluate the GSG (see Table 4).     32   Table 4: Characteristics of Participation Type 3, the chosen engagement mechanism for the GSG Evaluation    Mechanism Class & Type Type 3 Participation Simplified Information Flow Model  Mechanism Variables  Selection Method:  Controlled-Uncontrolled Controlled Elicitation Facilitation: Yes-No Facilitated Response Mode: Open-Closed Open Information Input:  Set-Flexible Flexible Medium of Information Transfer: Face-to-face/Non-Face-to-face Face-to-face Facilitation of Aggregation: Structured-Unstructured Structured Description: This mechanism uses various decision aids to ensure structured consideration and assessment, and hence aggregation, of opinions. This mechanism is characterized by the controlled selection of participants, facilitated group (FTF) discussions, unconstrained participant responses, and flexible information input from the sponsors (depending on the capacity of the participants), often in the form of “experts” who are available for questioning by the public participants. Information that structured when aggregated.      33 Table 5: Congruency & Incongruence of the GSG to Rowe and Frewerʼs (2005) Mechanism Variables (Mechanism Variables: CON = congruent, INC = Incongruent)  (Information Flow Model Congruence: EFF = Effective INEFF = Ineffective) Mechanism Variables Mechanism Class  Mechanisms Selection Method Elicitation  Facilitation Response Mode Information Input Medium of Information Transfer Facilitation of Aggregation Information Flow Model Congruence   Required Variables: Controlled Yes Open Flexible FTF Structured  Communication type 1 Information broadcasts (“publicity” television) INC INC INC INC INC INC INEFF Communication type 2 Public hearings/meetings (questions & answers) INC INC INC CON CON INC INEFF Communication type 3 Drop-in centres,TV (not interactive),Internet Info INC INC INC INC INC INC INEFF Communication type 4 Hotline CON INC INC CON INC INC INEFF Consultation type 1 Opinion poll,Referendum,Survey,Telepoll/voting CON INC INC INC INC CON INEFF Consultation type 2 Consultation document CON INC CON INC INC INC INEFF Consultation type 3 Electronic consultation (interactive Web site) INC INC CON INC INC INC INEFF Consultation type 4 Focus group CON CON CON INC CON INC INEFF Consultation type 5 Study circle, Open space INC CON CON INC CON INC INEFF Consultation type 6 Citizen panel—group based (e.g., health panel) CON CON CON INC CON CON INEFF Participation type 1 Action planning workshop, Citizensʼ jury,  CON CON CON CON CON INC INEFF Participation type 2 Negotiated rule making, Task force INC INC CON CON CON INC INEFF Participation type 3 Deliberative opinion poll, Planning cell CON CON CON CON CON CON EFF Participation type 4 Town meeting (New England model) with voting INC INC CON CON CON CON INEFF     34 Apart from using frameworks to evaluate how successfully the GSG engaged youth, I supported my evaluation of the gameʼs effectiveness by running a focus group with two CoV planners who were directly involved in the PGCC planning project and participated as GSG facilitators.  These two CoV planners were selected based on familiarity with all three phases the GSG in the PGCC planning; (1) the adaptation of the GSG process during pre-engagement; (2) the implementation of the youth engagement events; (3) as well as, received the GSG PGCC Youth Engagement Report and for subsequent integration into the final corridor design proposal.      The results were captured in a SWOT analysis (See Appendix C for focus group questions). The intention was to understand the internal and external factors that affected the GSG ability to provide actionable information to the CoV and enabled youth to influence the PGCC planning project. A SWOT analysis provides contextual awareness. This simple and effective analytical framework can determine where change is possible or necessary. ʻStrengthsʼ and ʻWeaknessʼ provide an internal assessment, and ʻOpportunitiesʼ and ʻThreatsʼ identity eternal factors. In other words, understanding the internal and external factors that affected the GSG ability to provide actionable information and enable youth to influence the PGCC planning project.        35  Results  Evaluating the effectiveness of the GSG as an engagement tool The GSG met all the criteria pertaining to an effective Type 3 Mechanism according to Rowe and Frewer (2005), my assessment is that the GSG was an effective engagement tool for the purposes it was meant to serve. The purpose being, conduct comprehensive youth engagement on active transportation design preferences and provide the CoV with actionable information.  Participant Selection: Controlled  The selection of participants for Type 3 processes should first be controlled. That is, the number of participants and where they come from should be pre-determined by the researchers/facilitators according to the objectives of the process.  Since the objective was to receive feedback specifically from local area youth about the implementation of a transportation plan, participation was only open to secondary and elementary students, typically age 18 and below, who attended the schools within the PGCC corridor area: Kitsilano Secondary, Bayview Elementary, General Gordon Elementary and Henry Hudson Elementary (See Figure 3). Moreover, teachers had to provide legal assent to the youth engaging in the process. Subsequently teachersʼ inviting the GSG also controlled for participant bias derived from self-selection.  Elicitation Facilitation: Yes  Type 3 processes also ought to be facilitated processes, and Rowe and Frewer (2005) argue that care should be taken to elicit only relevant information, and not irrelevant, or “spurious” information (see Table 2), since this risks wasting time and eroding confidence in the process.  The GSG was a facilitated process where a lead     36 facilitator and five team facilitators would engage 21-32 youth in teams of 4-7 players. Facilitatorʼs backgrounds included strong understandings of active transportation and facilitation based on a combination of education, (graduate level degrees in urban planning, or engineering) and experience. Lead facilitators were intimately familiar with the GSG as they co-designed the game.  Team facilitators were provided with verbal and visual instructions (Figure ) prior to the gameplay. Spurious information was minimized by using various game mechanics and facilitation techniques like scaffolding instructions, prompting players with consistent and simple design language, using visual aids like the design cards and the board itself, and incentivizing collaborative behaviour through loss aversion.   Response Mode: Open  GSG gameplay involved asking youth open-ended questions in three areas of the gameplay; the ʻIntro & Brainstorm,ʼ the ʻMini-Street Design,ʼ and the ʻGSG Team Street Transformation.ʼ When the youth responded they had to dialogue with the others and eventually illustrate the process through which players are introduce gave kids scenarios to solve on cards.  They had to think about what these scenarios Figure 5: Excerpt from the GSG Facilitator Handbook: ʻIntro & Brainstormʼ  a. Write	  ‘Livability‘	  on	  the	  board	  and	  break	  it	  to	  ‘live.’	  	  i. Ask	  players	  ‘What	  do	  they	  need	  to	  live	  in	  their	  community?’	  	  ii. After	  several	  ideas	  have	  been	  written	  on	  the	  chalkboard	  by	  the	  scribe	  follow-­‐up	  with	  ‘how	  can	  the	  street	  help	  you	  achieve	  what	  you	  need	  to	  live?’	  iii. Then	  prompt	  players	  with	  the	  notion	  of	  ‘Fun,	  Safe	  and	  Easy’	  design	  principles.	  (i.e.’	  what	  would	  be	  ‘fun’	  way	  to	  achieve	  that	  livability	  goal?’	  or	  ‘how	  do	  you	  think	  we	  could	  make	  that	  great	  idea	  ‘easier’?’)	       37 represented for them and respond accordingly.  When they responded, they had to do so by actively engaging in dialogue with the other participants, soliciting other team memberʼs opinions and interpretations of the scenario.  The facilitators asked the players to decide amongst themselves who had the best idea. They then voted on the best idea.  In the “Brainstorm”, players participated in an open-ended deliberation, which framed the subsequent gameplay (Figure 5). Figure 5 is an excerpt from the GSG Facilitator Handbook that outlines how a facilitator is to prompt the brainstorm players to share in an open format. This open-ended activity defined how a team can win because in it players collectively expressed what will persuade their vote, their personal active transportation design preferences.   In the ʻMini-Street Designʼ phase we introduced youth to diverse street typologies and introduced them to the GSG design tools. Players were encouraged to use the design tools to respond in open-ended manner. Figure 5 demonstrates how facilitators elicit open-ended feedback when intro during the design tools. In the ʻGSG Team Street Transformation,ʼ the team design phase, players were given numerous scenarios to needed openly respond to through collaborative design (See Figure 8).     38 Figure 5: Excerpt from the GSG Facilitator Handbook: ʻMini-Street Designʼ 4.	  	  	  Team	  Facilitators	  are	  to	  ask	  students	  to	  draw	  “how	  they	  could	  make	  their	  own	  street	  more	  Fun,	  Safe,	  and	  Easy.”	  Use	  the	  ‘Mini	  Street’	  located	  at	  the	  end	  of	  the	  booklet.	  Instead	  of	  providing	  all	  the	  instructions	  before	  starting,	  get	  players	  started	  drawing	  and	  progressively	  intro	  instructional	  prompts.	  Mini	  Street	  Design	  Prompts:1	  i. Brainstorm:	  Refer	  players	  to	  the	  brainstorm	  of	  design	  principles	  for	  ideas	  and	  directions	  ii. Grid	  Pattern:	  Ask	  players	  why	  does	  the	  street	  have	  a	  grid	  pattern?	  Encourage	  them	  to	  consider	  the	  reality	  of	  limited	  space	  and	  tradeoffs.	  iii. Design	  Cards:	  Place	  half	  a	  deck	  of	  Design	  Cards	  in	  the	  center	  of	  the	  table	  and	  distribute	  2	  cards	  to	  every	  player.	  	  The	  Design	  Cards	  are	  examples	  Urban	  Design	  Elements	  players	  may	  consider	  including	  in	  their	  street	  design.	  iv. Scenario	  Cards:	  If	  time	  allows,	  recite	  one	  of	  the	  Scenario	  Cards.	  Players	  will	  most	  likely	  not	  have	  enough	  time	  address	  it,	  but	  it	  will	  better	  prepare	  for	  ‘live	  gameplay.’	   Figure 8: GSG Sample Scenario Card      39 Information Input: Flexible  Information input was flexible so that the limited time available for youth engagement could be maximized. Instead of sticking to rigid scripts, facilitators maximized relevant information transfers by adapting to the youth capacities with respect to knowledge and dialogue.  For instance the ʻMini-Street Designʼ phase players learn about various typologies of street design. Instead of providing a lecture, facilitators adapted the format based on the response to the visual aids and questions such as: “what types of roads do you have in your neighborhood?” “how are they different?” and “which moves the most people?” If player capacity required additional support facilitators could input additional information. In brief, playersʼ need determined how information inputs were adjusted to optimize relevant information transfers.  Medium of Information Transfer: Face-to-Face  Face to face information transfer are best suited to provide, the CoV youth engagement goals; to provide a comprehensive learning experience that was valuable and contributed to youth influencing decision-makers. The GSG is a collaborative team based board game that requires players to attend in person so that they may dialogue and interact with sponsor representatives, the GSG or CoV staff facilitators.   Facilitation of Aggregation: Structured  Actionable information is information that is structured in a useful manner. Structured aggregation maximizes relevant information by observing a systematic method of data aggregation. We assimilated and represented the data in various structured manners with the intention of providing the CoV with relevant information. First by summarizing     40 frequency of design features by street typology (i.e. bikes lanes, neighborhood streets, and intersections). Figure 9 provides an example of the GSGʼs structured aggregation and representation of youth feedback.  For additional examples please see Appendix B and Figure 11-13.   In summary, the GSG provided congruent mechanism variables with the PGCC Planning Projects youth engagement goals and therefore and has the capacity to provide effective engagement.   Figure 9: GSG Example of Structured Aggregation   Evaluating how successfully the GSG engaged youth Franksʼ (2006) framework provides Five lessons, each with specific sub-questions that evaluators can use to assess how successfully a project engaged youth.  The GSG was evaluated according to these criteria, and the results are presented in Table 8-(Summary infographic also available (Figure 10: GSG Gameplay Summary-Infographic).     41  Table 6: Evaluating the Effectiveness of the GSG According to Rowe and Frewer (2005) Criteria for Evaluation Mechanism  for Evaluation GSG Characteristics Did the GSG meet Rowe and Frewerʼs Criteria? Mechanism Class Type 3 Participation N/A N/A Simplified Information Flow Model  The sponsor, the CoV via the Green Streets Game, engaged in a multi-directional flow of information with the a public of local youth. The Sponsor communicate the transportation context, and the public responded by conveying design preferences. N/A Variables  for Evaluation Variables  for Evaluation Variables  for Evaluation Did the GSG meet Rowe and Frewerʼs Criteria? Selection Method:  Controlled No self-selection bias by students; Participants were controlled based their attendance local schools and their teacherʼs request, not participant self-selection. YES Elicitation Facilitation:  Facilitated We sought input through face-to-face facilitation YES Response Mode:  Open The game is participant driven and open to their interpretation in the brainstorm, the street design, they determined where, how much, and what to put. We had to expand our design features from 50-97 to capture their open responses. YES Information Input:  Flexible We wanted to make sure were clarifying thing and maximizing time. In brainstorm and streets 101 we limited introduction of topics and terms, but sought their interpretation but were wiling fill any gap. YES Medium of Information Transfer:  Face-to-face It is a workshop that occurred in classrooms YES Facilitation of Aggregation:  Structured We assimilated and represented the data in a structured manner. First by summarizing frequency by design feature and street typology. Representing based various ways please Appendix B. YES     42  Table 7: Summary of the GSGʼs Adherence to Frankʼs Lessons for Youth Participation (The percentages are the proportion of procedural questions per lesson adhered to across the various sub-mechanism or phases of the gameplay.)   Sub-Mechanism  (or ʻPhaseʼ) INTRO & BRAINSTORM MINI STREET DESIGN SHARE BACK GREEN STREET TEAM TRANSFORMATION! PRESENTIONS & VOTE! SUMMARY Give Responsibility & Voice 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Build Capacity 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 33% Encourage Youthful Styles  83% 83% 100% 100% 100% 0% Involve Adults 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Engagement Phase PRE-ENGAGEMENT INTRA-ENGAGEMENT POST-ENGAGEMENT Adapt the Sociopolitical Context. 50% 50% 0%     43 Figure 10: GSG Gameplay Summary-Infographic      44  Table 8 Evaluation of Youth Engagement Effectiveness (Lesson 1: Giving Responsibility and Voice) PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS: Giving Responsibility and Voice INTRO & BRAINSTORM MINI STREET DESIGN SHARE BACK GREEN STREET TEAM TRANSFORMATION! PRESENTIONS & VOTE! SUMMARY How did adults share power? The  ʻbrainstormʼ is based on the input of youth and it determines the criteria to win/objective of the game. Therefore adults share power because let are enabling youth to have the autonomy to determine the games winning conditions.  Youth independently redesigned a street Youth players are able to add to gameplay based on their independent learning. This is done during the team ʻshare backʼ where they articulate their ideas amongst their fellow teammates.  In teams players are to transform the street in response to the scenario cards. Facilitators to enforce rules but instead, support teams as requested. Facilitators are instructed to give enough space for autonomous play. Instead they are tasked to remind teams to the best strategy to win is to collaborate. Youth themselves articulated the designs and evaluate their peers. If necessary, facilitator could help teams summaries their ideas. NA How did adults recognize youth capabilities? Youth are addressed as with respect of equals, co-learners. Youth are addressed as with respect of equals, co-learners. Youth are addressed as with respect of equals, co-learners. Youth are addressed as with respect of equals, co-learners. Encouraged active play by with supportive commentary. Youth are addressed as with respect of equals, co-learners. Youth efforts are verbally recognized by adult facilitators.       45  Table 9: Evaluation of Youth Engagement Effectiveness (Lesson 2: Build Capacity) PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS: Build Capacity INTRO & BRAINSTORM MINI STREET DESIGN SHARE BACK GREEN STREET TEAM TRANSFORMATION! PRESENTIONS & VOTE! SUMMARY How was youth knowledge augmented?  Practice using local & experiential knowledge by citing examples of their neighborhood and other experiences and areas they were familiar with. Youth also generate the group themes. Introduction to active transportation, road typologies, and GSG gameplay. Practicing public speaking and communication through design. Youth collaborative gaming facilitated internal knowledge sharing.  Youth shared their map-ideas. NA How were youth skills augmented?   “ “ “ Autonomy of a real engagement process. Collaborative gaming requires strong communication and other group-based skills. Practice collective decision-making. Practicing Public speaking. NA How was youth confidence augmented? Addressing youth a co-inquirers and providing the autonomy to determine the conditions of ʻplay.ʼ Experiential learning or ʻlearning by doingʼ- first recognizing current knowledge by creating game interfaces like the boards and expressive tactile opportunities, like drawing and the design cards. “ Autonomy of a real engagement process.  “ Youth efforts are verbally recognized by adult facilitators        46  Table 10: Evaluation of Youth Engagement Effectiveness (Lesson 3: Encouraging Youthful Styles) PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS: Encouraging Youthful Styles INTRO & BRAINSTORM MINI STREET DESIGN SHARE BACK GREEN STREET TEAM TRANSFORMATION! PRESENTIONS & VOTE! SUMMARY How were youth socially engaged? The GSG implements game thinking (a hook) to jumps into a spontaneous and creative brainstorm. NA Visual, oral and tactile means of communication.  Game thinking: focused enthusiasm via playful competition. Tactile, colorful activity  The vote and ʻwinʼ NA How were youth dynamically engaged? “ Tactile learning opportunities “ Game thinking: focused enthusiasm via playful competition. Surprise scenarios. Tactile, colorful activity “ NA How were youth interactively engaged? “ “ “ Game thinking: focused enthusiasm via playful competition. Tactile, colorful activity “ NA How were youth expressively engaged? “ “ Visual, oral and tactile means of communication. Communication of personal learning and knowledge Game thinking: focused enthusiasm via playful competition. Tactile, colorful activity. “ NA How were youth constructively engaged? Youth are challenged to reflect on their values and needs. “ Communication of personal learning and knowledge.  Game thinking: focused enthusiasm via playful competition. Tactile, colorful activity. “ NA How were youth challenged to learn? NA “ Communication of personal learning and knowledge.  Visual, oral and tactile means of communication. Game thinking: focused enthusiasm via playful competition. Surprise scenarios. Tactile, colorful activity “ NA     47   Table 11: Evaluation of Youth Engagement Effectiveness (Lesson 4: Involving Adults) PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS: Involving Adults INTRO & BRAINSTORM MINI STREET DESIGN SHARE BACK GREEN STREET TEAM TRANSFORMATION! PRESENTIONS & VOTE!  SUMMARY How were adults involved? Facilitators guide the brainstorm. Adults support and validate youth local & experiential knowledge Adults provide instructional support. Adults share transportation knowledge Adults provide instructional support Adults scale-back direct involvement, but are present as resource persons work Adults encourage and help youth summarize their work Youth efforts recognized by adult facilitators Post-game adults are exclusively involved in the following: the analysis of data, writing of the report, and presentation to decision-makers.      48  Table 12: Evaluation of Youth Engagement Effectiveness (Lesson 5: Adapting the Sociopolitical Context) PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS: Adapting the Sociopolitical Context PRE-ENGAGEMENT INTRA-ENGAGEMENT POST-ENGAGEMENT Did the sociopolitical context adapt? The sociopolitical context was partially adapted.  The sociopolitical context was partially adapted. NA If so, how? Funding for a youth engagement strategy was made available. The City actively sought out youth by engaging with local schools.  The GSG is participant driven process and thus youth voices were authentic. NA If not, what were weaknesses?  The GSG did not make space for youth during the pre-engagement phase (i.e. prior to the gameplay).  Youth were not involved in the engagement design process.  The process should of made decision-makers accessible to youth (i.e. invite a councilor to play the game or be presented to).   A lack of sustained youth engagement. Youth were not a part of the final decision-making process. Youth did not get a chance to present their findings to council or city staff. There was no follow-up with youth participants or young people in general. If not, what were the barriers? No access to local youth pre-engagement. Extreme politicization of the PGCC planning project marginalized youth voices.   Youth access to decision-makers. Extreme politicization of the PGCC marginalized youth voices. Access to youth post-game Council meetings are adult oriented and logistically quite challenging for youth to independently attend.  The extreme politicization of the PGCC marginalized youth voices.     49 The GSG did an adequate job at addressing most of Frankʼs Five Lessons for Youth Participation. Table 7 summaries the GSG adherence to Frankʼs lessons during the PFCC corridor project. The percentages and colour indicate the proportion of procedural questions per lesson adhered to across the various sub-mechanism or phases of the gameplay. Demonstrated by the Table 12 is a strong adherences to Frankʼs lessons except for ʻadapting the sociopolitical context. The GSG successful incorporated game mechanics to encourage youthful styles of engagement. The process included appropriate degrees of adult involvement throughout the process as co-inquirers, facilitators and in other capacities. The gameplay is participant-driven, therefore player shared the responsibility and ownership of the outcome.  Youth voices were given space by the responsibility (i.e. the brainstorm & vote).  Commutatively the aforementioned ʻlessonsʼ built youth capacity to dialogue and collaboratively address active transportation challenges.    Overall the GSG did not adequately adapt the sociopolitical context was poorly adapted to youth needs. While there was a fair sharing of responsibility, the summary did not give space for youth voices.  The GSG gameplay is participant driven, but a lack of sustained youth engagement prior to and after the engagement events diluted youth voices. Unfortunately the GSG was not successful at fully adapting the sociopolitical context to the needs of the local youth. The extreme media and public interest marginalized youth voices and no space was made available for the youth themselves. For instance space for youth to directly address council. At the same time, youth voices were heard by staff through the report and applied in the design of the proposal that went to council.     50 Focus Group Results  Based on the responses given to the semi-structured focus group questions, the two CoV planners identified strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats of using the GSG as an engagement tool for CoV that provides actionable, useful and impactful, information (Table 13).   Overall the GSG provided actionable information for CoV staff; the information was useful and impacted the final design of the PGCC planning project. That being said, ʻThreatsʼ and ʻWeaknesses,ʼ did diminish the actionability of the youth engagement imitative. The GSG did not consider or compensate for the general public or media overshadowing youth voices. A lack follow-up with participants or a sustained engagement was a weakness of the GSG and also hindered youth voices from reaching council. The Strength of the GSG included providing CoV staff with ʻEye Openingʼ feedback in a “thematically clear” and comprehensive manner. The GSG reports influenced staff and in turn affect the final design of the PGCC planning project. Moreover, youth voices through the GSG report are continuing to influences the study area. The report is informing additional neighborhood greening and social space.      51   Memorable Focus Group Quotes:  Strengths: “it was really eye opening for senior staff”  Threats: -“[youth voices and the GSG Report] got overshadowed. The fact that it was in [final report to council], the appendices, councilor normally do work so hard and go through every single thing of a staff report, because of all the media fracas.”  Opportunity: ”there was a lot more creativity and demands for public art, and the gardens, I think they are now in the phase [planners] working on the community gardens, and by making the traffic circles. And the [youths] work is informing those latter stages.    52 Table 13 Focus Group SWOT Analysis  Helpful to Meeting the Objectives Harmful to Meeting the Objectives  Strengths  Weaknesses Internal Origin  1. Staff used the findings to advocate for youth a. “Really eye opening” even for or senior staff. 2. Methodologically it was strong. a. The sample was representative of the community- b. Controlled for participant self selection bias c. Large Sample 3. Thematically clear. a. Extensive appendices-graphs 4. Unique youth preferences shone through. a. City staff is implementing them. b. The report is continuing “informing those latter stages   1. Lack of follow up; a. evaluation with youth participants; b. and lack of follow up informing youth. 2. The report methodology could have been “a little bit more robust and rigor” 3. The GSG and the report did little to address: a. technical and cost considerations.   Opportunities  Threats External Origin  1. Involve youth in the post game stages; a. interpretation of the findings; b. evaluation of the engagement and;  c. presentation of findings 2. Only one youth spoke at council and “she was incredible” 3 The GSG report is continuing inform neighborhood the latter stage of the PGCC (i.e. demands for public  art, greening and social space).   1. The youth engagement strategy was “overshadowed” by the “media fracas” 2. The school strike has also hampered post-intervention evaluation.      55  Discussion  Summary:  The analytical models indicated that the GSG performed positively but inconsistently at addressing the PGCC projectʼs youth engagement goals. For example, a Frankʼs framework and the focus group indicated that sociopolitical contest was not adapted and that lack of follow up and early youth engagement hindered youth empowerment. As one planner put it: the report “got overshadowed” by the current adults-oriented sociopolitical context. At the moment, the hegemonic sociopolitical context favours adults and thus ill-equipped institutions need to make a concerted effort to modify practices to serve the needs of youth. For instance the CoV could enhance youth inclusion into civic governance by shortening “their bureaucratic procedures” (Frank, 2006). For youth, an “excessively long wait may prevent [them] from recognizing their role” (Alparone and Rissotto 2001). Alparone and Risotto suggest cynicism can be forestalled and trust can maintained, if a city provides periodic follow-ups. Council could occasionally have a ʻroaming councilʼ and situate decision-making processes in youth locations (i.e. schools, community centers).  At the same time, some youth focused institutions like schools may become “uncomfortable with the sociopolitical controversies” (Frank 2006: Baldassari, et al 1987) and that adapting the sociopolitical contest should occur independent such institutions.  The focus group revealed that the media and general public marginalize youth voices at council. The GSG youth process influenced the PGCC Planning Projectʼs final report and design, but council meetings were     56 dominated by non-youth voices. At the end of the day, councilorsʼ decision-making was not informed by the youth report. At no point did the GSG enable youth to access councilors, the elected decision-makers. Frank argues that youth process ought to be provided opportunities to directly access council. For instance, presenting to council, or inviting councilors to the schools as participants.  Had they done this, local youth could have served as their own advocates while accruing invaluable learning experiences. The experience could have provided personal growth and development by boosting self-esteem and exposure new opportunities.  Figure 11a: PGCC Youth Preferences by Overall Themes       57  Figure 11b: PGCC Youth ʻFun, Safe, and Easyʼ Design Preferences    Figure 11c: PGCC Youth ʻFun, Safe, and Easyʼ Technical Design Preferences   At the same time, the evaluative frameworksʼ indicate the gameplay and report successfully addressed the CoV youth engagement goals. This face-to-face process is an effective mechanism for youth to enthusiastically come together, identify needs, and collaboratively address challenges. Players and facilitators equitably share responsibility; throughout the process youth had opportunities to autonomous decision-making. For instance, the ʻGSG Team  9     Discussion:  This graphic illustrates the incidence of design elements recommended by workshop participants to achieve the project goals.       GREENINGTrees 39% Flowers 31%Community Gardens 11%PERMITSRezoning 31%Temporary Commerce 13%BBQ Pits 9%PLAYPlayground 40%Sports Fields 30%Access to Water (Streams/Ponds) 13%GREENINGWaste Bins 34% Recycling Bins 21%Community Gardens 15% PERMITSRezoning 31% Mobile Food 31% Temporary Commerce 13% PLAYPlayground 40% Sports Fields 30% Access to Water 13% INTERSECTIONSPainted Crossing 36%Pedestrian Controlled Crosswalk 21% Pedestrian Bridge 13% TRAFFIC CALMINGSpeed bumps 47% Closing Streets 16%  Bollards 14% LIGHTINGStreet Lights 96%Decorative Lighting 2% TOP RANKED DESIGN FEATURES FOR FUN/SAFE/EASYFUN SAFE EASYINTERSECTIONS 33%TRAFFICCALMING29%LIGHTING20%GREENING 30%PERMITTING 21%PLAY 20%PLAY14%GREENING16% PERMITTING15%PROJECT GOAL RECOMMENDATIONS    58 Transformationʼ shared power by enabling autonomous collaboration in response to the scenario cards.  Moreover the process explicitly built youth capacities with respect to dialogue and design. The ʻMini-Street Designʼ & ʻShare Backʼ phases focus on learning about the street typologies and communicating ideas using the GSG design process.  Adult involvement was persistent and appropriate throughout the gameplay and overall process. Facilitators were instructed to engage with youth, and that their role was supportive and not authoritative. Moreover adults were involved and by advocating for resources to be allocated for youth engagement did partially adapt the sociopolitical context. Post-engagement the focus group indicated that adults advocated for local youth using the GSG report.   Despite not being reviewed by council, the GSG youth report still influenced the final design of the PGCC project. CoV staff indicated that the report was “well laid out, so were the appendices, and with the key themes [they] could wrap it in many things” (focus group). Figures 11a to Figure 11c is good example of how the GSG report provides youth feedback in broad themes and relevant detail technical information. The report also describes design preferences for over 6 distinct street typologies (i.e. bike routes, commercial street, park and school on a neighborhood street, residential and school on a neighborhood street, and etc.).  Figure 12 & 13 illustrate the relevant and structured manner information was aggregated for CoV urban designers.  The report not only provides useful thematic and detailed urban design elements, it captures unique and creative design features (see Figure 14). In fact the GSG process and report are so comprehensive they “continue to inform” the design of neighborhood traffic calming, community art, and greening initiatives (focus group).        59 Gamification encouraged youthful styles throughout the board game.  For instance, the colorful aesthetic and tactile gameplay provided a venue for engaging players and introducing diverse approaches to learning.  Other lessons like sharing responsibility, building capacity, and adult involvement were also achieved by incorporating a pedagogical framework where youth were not considered passive objects, but subjects that collaborate, inquire, and create new knowledge.  According to Freireʼs (1970) Education Empowerment theories, this kind of learning environment can build self-esteem and even lead to social change in youth Freireʼs theory is embodied in the design of the GSGʼs gameplay, where young players share power, lead each other in efforts to map neighbourhood assets, identify problems on their own, and are encouraged by facilitators to collaboratively imagine solutions.     Figure 12: Top Ranked Design Features for Bike Routes   Figure 13: Streetscape Thematic Comparison: Bike Route    12   Thematic Recommendations: The preferred bike route found within the Point Grey Cornwall study area would provide: • Increased planting of trees and flowers; • A variety of intersection improvements including painted crossings, pedestrian controlled crosswalks, and accessibility ramps;  • Local commerce and amenities such as corner stores, coffee shops, community spaces, and mobile food vendors. 0% 10% 20% 30% PERMITTING AMENITY SITTING GREENING LIGHTING ART WEATHER PROOFING TRAFFIC CALMING BIKE INFRA-STRUCTURE PLAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Streetscapes: Bike Route Bike Route Overall GREENING 29%Flowers 35%Trees 23% Garbage Cans 16%PERMITTING 11%Rezoning 46%Mobile Food 18%Temporary Commerce 14%INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 18%Painted Crossings 38%Pedestrian-controlled crosswalks 26%Accessibility Ramps 13%TOP RANKED DESIGN FEATURES FOR BIKE ROUTES 12   Thematic Recommendations: The preferred bike route found within the Point Grey Cornwall study area would provide: • Increased planting of trees and flowers; • A variety of intersection improvements including painted crossings, pedestrian controlled crosswalks, and accessibility ramps;  • Local commerce and amenities such as corner stores, coffee shops, community spaces, and mobile food vendors. 0% 10% 20% 30% PERMITTING AMENITY SITTING GREENING LIGHTING ART WEATHER PROOFING TRAFFIC CALMING BIKE INFRA-STRUCTURE PLAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Streetscapes: Bike Route Bike Route Overall GREENING 29%Flowers 35%Trees 23% Garbage Cans 16%PERMITTING 11%Rezoning 46%Mobile Food 18%Temporary Commerce 14%INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 18%Painted Crossings 38%Pedestrian-controlled crosswalks 26%Accessibility Ramps 13%TOP RANKED DESIGN FEATURES FOR BIKE ROUTES    60  Figure 14: Cool Design Recommendations   Limitations and Lessons Learned:  The following limitations are based on the analytical frameworks and the focus groups. Rowe and Frewerʼs (2005) typology indicated that the GSG was an effective mechanism because its IFM variables were congruent with the goals of the youth engagement strategy. That being said, the evaluative framework is unable to go deeper than indicating the “presence” of a variable. For example, the GSGʼs structured aggregation of information was not subject to any qualitative criteria. The goal was to provide actionable information: data that is easily absorbed by, and useful for, decision-makers. However, the effectiveness of the structure or method of aggregation was not considered. Subsequently the determination that the mechanism was capable of being ʻeffectiveʼ requires further evaluation.  The GSG game also did not address enough of the technical and financial realities of city planning within the gameplay. In the focus group, city staff indicated that if the gameplay had integrated additional design constraints that current planners face, the data yielded would have greater potential to inform the final design.      For example, integrating the monetary costs of urban design features with some sort of purchasing aspect to the game (e.g. introducing money) or !1. Neighbourhood food carts2. WiFi trees3. Retractable covered sidewalks4. Mid-block street crossings5. Creek and stream daylighting6. Street closures COOL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS    61 adding technical constraints like the requirement for a continuous 6-meter right of way for emergency vehicles.  These sorts of constraints have previously been incorporated in other examples of engagement games. For example, designers of the Dutch game ʻPlay the Cityʼ incorporated the costs of infrastructure by using game mechanics like a community budget and requiring players to negotiate with other players for additional funds or in-kind contributions when deciding whether to purchase infrastructure such as sidewalks, higher densities, street furniture, or even allocating space for a community garden. Added complexity does enhance usability but also take addition time. For instance, ʻPlay the Cityʼ games require participants to commit to daylong or multiday engagement processes.   While a lack of financial constraints inhibited the usability of the GSG mechanism, the process did integrate some constraints planners face. For instance, the board employed a grid, which prompted players to design within a constrained space (Figure 5). While this process was intended to build youth capacity for decision-making and for youth to gain an appreciation of urban planning, the fact that financial and technical considerations were not realistic may have hindered the usefulness, or actionability, of the game to future policymaking.   Perhaps more importantly, the lack of ʻrealisticʼ constraints also did not constrain playersʼ imagination.  It may have led players to dream up innovate ideas that cannot be incubated within conventional thinking.  In other cases, it inspired team building and confidence for the players who imagined creative new solutions to old problems.  For instance, one student wanted to maximize direct sunlight to the sidewalks, but also did not want to get wet when it rained. He came up with the idea of lining commercial streets with     62 ʻrain-recycling-solar retractable awningsʼ that responded to actual weather conditions. While his idea was almost certainly not common practice or feasible for the City, his idea was greatly appreciated by his teammates, and their team earned the most votes from all the other players.    The nature of collaborative gaming precludes residents that are time-scarce from participating. Face-to-face deliberation forums require citizens to commit a considerable amount of time and effort (Min, 2007);  this research suggests that online deliberation can be a good alternative to costly face-to-face deliberation. However, face-to-face engagement has been empirically demonstrated to foster a greater capacity for deliberation and thus democracy (Min, 2007).  Moreover, Vancouverites are increasingly feeling concerned about “a growing sense of isolation and disconnection” and worry that this disconnect from human contact is “deepening civic malaise”(Vancouver Foundation, 2012). Therefore the higher cost of face-to-face engagement has the potential for greater qualitative returns. Face-to-face engagement strategies like the GSG do not preclude supplemental online strategies. For example, the results from the GSG gameplay could be made available for online deliberation or polling if the City chose.       63  Conclusion  The future of youth engagement requires practitioners and decision-makers to acknowledge that many sociopolitical contexts are not designed to accommodate youth; thus for any engagement process to go beyond tokenism accommodations at must be made (Frank 2006). Early and sustained youth involvement in engagement process is also fundamental.  Games can play an increasingly meaningful role in engaging youth and adapting the socio-political context to represent their needs and to encourage their voices. The GSG may be a valuable tool to apply to future planning projects where empowering youth voices is critical.            64 Appendix A Table 14 Key Engagement Mechanisms Adapted from Rowe and Frewer (2005) Mechanism Class Examples Selection Method: Controlled/Un-controlled Elicitation Facilitation: Yes/No Response Mode: Open-Closed Information Input: Set/Flexible Medium of Information Transfer: FTF/ Non-FTF Facilitation of Aggregation: Structured/ Unstructured Description Communication  Type 1   Information broadcasts  Uncontrolled NA NA Set Non-FTF NA These are traditional communication mechanisms, typically used as part of public information programs, through which a particular population is targeted with set information, via a variety of (non-FTF) media.  Communication Type 2 Public hearings Public meetings (with questions and answers) Uncontrolled NA NA Flexible FTF NA These mechanisms rely on the public to come to the information rather than vice versa. As such, the involved public is largely self-selected and biased in terms of those most proactive and interested. Information is communicated face-to-face by sponsors to those involved and is variable, depending to some degree (often small) on what participants ask. Public hearings are often required when some major government program is about to be implemented or prior to the passage of legislation; public meetings may be initiated by a local authority or convened in response to citizen concerns. Communication Type 3 Drop-in centers, Cable TV (not interactive), Internet information Uncontrolled NA NA Set Non-FTF NA These mechanisms rely on the public to come to the information. Drop-in centers (frequent in most UK authorities) involve staffed information distribution points at which citizens can stop to ask questions, review literature, or look at displays or exhibitions concerning a project in the area. More modern methods supply information via the Internet (e.g., council plans on a Web site) or cable TV (e.g., the Parliamentary Channel in Britain). The information is set in that the public can only acquire what sponsors make available, although it is variable in depending on what is sought and when. Although there may be FTF contact with drop-in center staff, these tend to be representatives of decision makers directing the public to appropriate information rather than significant information sources in themselves. Communication Type 4 Hotline Controlled NA NA Flexible Non-FTF NA As with type 3 mechanisms, these rely on public initiative. Information is flexible, however, and supplied in response to individual query. Information is not provided FTF but via some other medium, such as the phone. A hot- line allows citizens to phone in questions on a particular project and receive either a direct answer or an answer by return call.     65  Mechanism Class  Examples Selection Method: Controlled/Un-controlled Elicitation Facilitation: Yes/No Response Mode: Open-Closed Information Input: Set/Flexible Medium of Information Transfer: FTF/ Non-FTF Facilitation of Aggregation: Structured/ Unstructured Description Consultation  Type 1 Opinion poll, Referendum, Survey, Telepolling/voting Controlled No Closed NA Non-FTF Structured These mechanisms are essentially highly controlled ways of acquiring answers to specific questions from large samples. Quantity of data is more important than quality (there is no facilitation of the elicitation process, responses are closed/limited, and there is no FTF interaction). Notable sources of within-mechanism variance include whether there is direct impact of elicited responses (yes for referenda; no for surveys, opinion polls, and advisory referenda, or “preferenda”) and the precise medium of trans- mission (i.e., whether postal or over the phone; e.g., telepolling/voting). Consultation Type 2 Consultation document Controlled No Open NA Non-FTF Unstructured This class aims to attain open responses on a significant issue. The typical mechanism is the consultation—in which a document is sent to a list of potentially interested people (often, representatives of interest groups and other organizations) with limited time available for open commentary. Potentially, nonelected others may contribute but may find it difficult to do so if they are outside of the information loop. See type 3 for consultations that deliberately aim for wider input. Consultation Type 3 Electronic consultation (interactive Web site) Uncontrolled No Open NA Non-FTF Unstructured As type 2, but with uncontrolled selection. Some local authorities in the UK have intranet sites inviting e-mail messages from citizens on particular lo- cal issues or service matters. Consultation  Type 4 Focus group Controlled Yes Open NA FTF Unstructured This type of consultation emphasizes quality of information over quantity, with effort expended to facilitate the information elicited with FTF interaction. It is typified by the focus group, which may involve as many as a dozen people facilitated in discussion of a general issue. Because there is no significant sponsor information, this may be seen as a consultation rather than participation mechanism. Consultation Type 5 Study circle, Open space Uncontrolled Yes Open NA FTF Unstructured This type is similar to type 4 except that participant selection is uncontrolled (participants self-selected). It is typified by the study circle (frequent in Sweden and the US). In this, a group of 5-20 people meets to discuss an issue or study a series of books: they come together for at least three sessions with a volunteer facilitator/group discussion leader. Guidelines are laid down for the conduct of the discussion. Open space involves large assemblies of self-selected participants who identify issues, which are discussed in smaller workshops before participants come together for a final plenary session.     66  Mechanism Class  Examples Selection Method: Controlled/Un-controlled Elicitation  Facilitation: Yes/No Response Mode: Open-Closed Information Input: Set/Flexible Medium of Information Transfer: FTF/ Non-FTF Facilitation of Aggregation: Structured/ Unstructured Description Consultation  type 6 Citizen panel— group based (e.g., health panel) Controlled Yes Open NA FTF Structured The main example of this type is the standing citizenʼ panels (e.g., health panel). This is characterized by the choice of representative participants who meet in a facilitated group setting. Unlike the focus group, the panel may meet several times a year to debate different topics (i.e., views may be traced throughout time), with members rotated off after a while. At the end of meetings, opinions are usually aggregated via some form of vote/ secret ballot. Consultations may also take place via mail (i.e., non-FTF, a different mechanism class). Participation type 1 Action planning workshop, Citizensʼ jury, Consensus conference Controlled Yes Open Flexible FTF Unstructured The mechanisms of this type are characterized by the controlled selection of participants, facilitated group (FTF) discussions, unconstrained participant responses, and flexible information input from the sponsors, often in the form of “experts” who are available for questioning by the public participants throughout a number of days. The group output is not structured as such and may depend on social and psychological group factors (dogmatic individuals, and so on).b Participation type 2 Negotiated rule making, Task force Uncontrolled No Open Flexible FTF Unstructured This class of mechanisms is structurally similar to type 1 but with the difference that there is no facilitation of the information elicitation process. In many ways, they are simple group processes with no specific facilitation— of input from group members, or aggregation of opinions. The examples noted here use small groups of participants (public representatives), with ready access to all pertinent information, to solve specific problemsʼ Participation type 3 Deliberative opinion poll, Planning cell Controlled Yes Open Flexible FTF Structured This class is also similar to type 1 but with the essential difference that structured aggregation takes place. In the case of deliberative opinion polling, the selected participants are polled twice, before and after deliberation on the issue (and questioning of experts); and in this process, structured aggregation of all participant opinions is attained. In the case of planning cells (a German mechanism), these tend to use various decision aids to ensure structured consideration and assessment, and hence aggregation, of opinions. Participation  type 4 Town meeting (New England model)—with voting Uncontrolled No Open Flexible FTF Structured This mechanism class differs from the others on a number of dimensions. Importantly, selection is uncontrolled, and there is no facilitation of information elicitation, although aggregation is structured. The archetypal exam is the town meeting (New England model), in which voting (aggregation) takes place after debate between self-selected participantsʼ     67 Appendix B      68 Appendix C    Focus Group questions   1. What are some of your concerns regarding youth engagement? (i.e. barriers) 2. What are the benefits of engaging youth?   3. How did the GSG address your concerns regarding the youth engagement? 4. Did the GSG provide the planning department with actionable feedback? If so  5. How did the tools alter or add to the Point Grey-Cornwall Projectʼs policies? Design? 6. What other opportunities do you imagine using the GSG process?        69  Works Cited Active Transportation Corridor: Seaside Greenway Completion and York Bikeway (Phase 1 of Point Grey-Cornwall Active Transportation Corridor) - 10182 Final staff report (July 23, 2013) July 16, 2013 Alparone, Francesca Romana, and Antonella Rissotto. "Children's citizenship and participation models: Participation in planning urban spaces and children's councils." Journal of community & applied social psychology 11.6 (2001): 421-434. AOHC: A Review of the Trends and Benefits of Community Engagement and Local Community Governance in Health Care, prepared by Ktpatzer Consulting, Community Centered Primary Health Care, Ontario, Canada (2006) Baezconde-Garbanati, Lourdes. "Minority youth leaders in action (MYLA): Empowering Latino and black youth to address obesity-related disparities." 141st APHA Annual Meeting (November 2-November 6, 2013). APHA, 2013. Barta, James, and Diane Schaelling. "Games We Play: Connecting Mathematics and Culture in the Classroom." Teaching children mathematics 4.7 (1998): 388-93. Boarnet, Marlon, Craig L. Anderson, Kristen Day and Tracy McMillan. Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School legislation: Urban form changes and childrenʼs active transportation to school American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2005: 28.2.2, 134-140. Bruce, Marny J., and Peter T. Katzmarzyk. "Canadian population trends in leisure-time physical activity levels, 1981-1998." Canadian journal of applied physiology 27.6 (2002): 681-690. Checkoway, Barry, et al. "Young people as competent citizens." Community Development Journal 38.4 (2003): 298-309.     70 Connections and Engagement: A survey of metro Vancouver June 2012 Vancouver Foundation Cooper AR , Page AS , Foster LJ , Qahwaji D . Commuting to school (are children who walk more physically active?) . Am J Prev Med . 2003;25:273–276 Corsi, Marco. 2002. The child friendly cities initiative in Italy. Environ- ment & Urbanization 14(2): 169–79. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, and Mihaly Csikzentmihaly. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Vol. 41. New York: HarperPerennial, 1991. Delgado Avila, Natalia. Co-creating the Green Streets Game. A collaborative research project with the members of Street Transformation Group. Diss. 2014. Dyer, Cathy and Nancy Pereira. Broadening & Strengthening: a Workshop on how to Strengthen and Sustain Youth engagement Practice in Mental Health Centres. Ontario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health. 2011 Felt, Ulrike, and Maximilian Fochler. "The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology." Science and Public Policy 35.7 (2008): 489-499. Frank, Kathryn I. "The potential of youth participation in planning." Journal of Planning Literature 20.4 (2006): 351-371. Franks, Myfanwy. "Pockets of Participation: Revisiting Child‐Centred Participation Research." Children & Society 25.1 (2011): 15-25. Freire, Paulo. Cultural action for freedom. Harvard educational review, 1970.     71 Furstenberg, Frank F. "The sociology of adolescence and youth in the 1990s: A critical commentary." Journal of Marriage and Family 62.4 (2000): 896-910. Galland, Olivier. "Adolescence, post-adolescence, youth: revised interpretations." Revue française de sociologie 44.5 (2003): 163-188. Gauthier, Madeleine. "L'âge des jeunes:«un fait social instable»." Lien social et politiques, RIAC 43 (2000): 166-167. Hashagen, S. (2002). Models of community engagement. Scottish Community Development Centre Haslett, Tim, et al. "Framework for Development and Evaluation of Community Engagement." International Journal for Court Administration 4.2 (2012): 31-45. Heron, John, and Peter Reason. "A participatory inquiry paradigm." Qualitative inquiry 3.3 (1997): 274-294. Hoffman, Donna L., and Thomas P. Novak. "Flow online: lessons learned and future prospects." Journal of Interactive Marketing 23.1 (2009): 23-34. Horelli, Liisa, and Mirkka Kaaja. "Opportunities and constraints of ʻinternet-assisted urban planningʼwith young people." Journal of Environmental Psychology 22.1 (2002): 191-200. Kapp, Karl M. The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Kebede, Adam and Julien Thomas. Green Streets Game Team. Point Grey-Cornwall Active Transportation Project, Summary of Findings: Children and Youth Engagement. Prepared for City of Vancouver Engineering Services Department. April 8th 2013.     72 Kirkpatrick Johnson, Monica, Glen H. Elder, and Michael Stern. "Attachments to family and community and the young adult transition of rural youth." Journal of Research on Adolescence 15.1 (2005): 99-125. Lennard, Henry L., and Suzanne H. Crowhurst Lennard. 2000. The for- gotten child: Cities for the well-being of children. Carmel, CA: Interna- tional Making Cities Livable Council. Lepper, Mark R. "Motivational considerations in the study of instruction." Cognition and instruction 5.4 (1988): 289-309. Lorenzo, Ray. 1997. Case study on children designing the future in a disadvantaged rural setting, Aspromonte, Italy. In Childrenʼs partici- pation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care, by Roger A. Hart, 114–18. London: Earthscan. Marschak, Jacob, and Roy Radner. ECONOMIC THEORY OF TEAMS. 1972. Meucci, Sandra, and Jim Redmon. 1997. Safe spaces: California chil- dren enter a policy debate. Social Justice 24(3): 139–51 Min, Seong‐Jae. "Online vs. Face‐to‐Face Deliberation: Effects on Civic Engagement." Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 12.4 (2007): 1369-1387. Montgomery, Heather. "The Anthropology of Childhood: Cherubs, Chattel, Changelings by David F. Lancy." American Ethnologist 36.4 (2009): 823-824. Orsini, Arthur. A Guide to Child & Youth Engagement in Active School Travel Projects. 2010  Pine, Gerald J. (2008).Teacher action research: building knowledge democracies. Thousand Oak, California: Sage.     73 Reddy, Nandana, and Kavita Ratna. "A journey in childrenʼs participation." Bangalore: The Concerned for Working Children www. workingchild. org (2002). Rowe, Gene, and Lynn J. Frewer. "A typology of public engagement mechanisms." Science, technology & human values 30.2 (2005): 251-290. Rowe, Gene, et al. "Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations." Public Understanding of Science (2008). Sarkissian, Wendy, et al. "Community participation in practice: New directions." The Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA (2003). Shier, Harry. "Pathways to participation: openings, opportunities and obligations." Children & society 15.2 (2001): 107-117. Skoumpourdi, Chrysanthi, and Francois Kalavassis. "Games as a mathematical activity: The coexistence of differing perceptions in the primary school community (teachers, students, parents)." Proceedings of CIEAEM 59, Mathematical Activity in Classroom Practice and as Research Object in Didactics: Two Complementary Perspectives (2007): 92-95. Stephens, Michael. "Toward Good Practice in Public Engagement." (2009). Talen, Emily, and Mary Coffindaffer. "The utopianism of children: an empirical study of children's neighborhood design preferences." Journal of Planning Education and Research 18.4 (1999): 321-331. Tan, Ekim, and Juval Portugali. "The responsive city design game." Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. 369-390.     74 Terrible, Rebecca Sellers. 2000. An annotated bibliography of literature concerning children and their knowledge of the environment. Journal of Planning Literature 14(3): 489–98. Thatcher, DC (1990). Promoting learning through games and simulations. Simulation and Gaming, 21(3), 262-273. The City of Vancouver -- Social Indicators and Trends Report (March 2009) Tonucci, Francesco, and Antonella Rissotto. 2001. Why do we need childrenʼs participation? The importance of childrenʼs participa- tion in changing the city. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 11:407–19. UN-Habitat (2012). Youth 21: Building an architecture for youth engagement in the UN system. Vajda, Steph, ed. Kitchen table sustainability: Practical recipes for community engagement with sustainability. Routledge, 2012. Wallerstein, Nina, and Edward Bernstein. "Empowerment education: Freire's ideas adapted to health education." Health Education & Behavior 15.4 (1988): 379-394. White, Rob. 2001. Youth participation in designing public spaces. Youth Studies Australia 20(1): 18–26. Zagal, José P., Jochen Rick, and Idris Hsi. "Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games." Simulation & Gaming 37.1 (2006): 24-40.      75  Appendix E: GSG Facilitator Handbook  	  Facilitatorʼs Handbook:  A guide to playing and facilitating a street-to-green transformational board game! www.greenstreetsgame.com  2 	  	   	  Table	  of	  Contents	  HOW	  TO	  USE	  THIS	  HANDBOOK	   4	  PLAY	  THE	  GREEN	  STREETS	  GAME!	   5	  FRANKS	  FIVELESSONS	  FOR	  YOUTH	  PARTICIPATION	  &	  GSG	   6	  GSG	  GAMEPLAY	  SUMMARY	   3	  GAME	  TOOLS	   4	  PRE-­‐GAME	  CLASS	  ROOM	  SET-­‐UP:	   7	  ALL	  PRE-­GAME	  FACILITATOR	  INSTRUCTIONAL	  HUDDLE	   8	  GAMEPLAY	  SUMMARY	   9	  GAMIFICATION:	  GAME	  THINKING	  &	  CURVE	  OF	  INTEREST	   11	  START	  HIGH	  SCHOOL	  VERSION!	   14	  INTRODUCTION/BRAINSTORM:	   15	  MINI	  STREET	  DESIGN	   20	  SHARE	  BACK	   22	  GREEN	  STREET	  TEAM	  TRANSFORMATION!	   23	  TEAM	  PRESENTATIONS	  &	  VOTE!	   25	  SUMMARY	   27	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  3 START	  ELEMENTARY	  VERSION!	   28	  INTRODUCTION/BRAINSTORM:	   29	  ANALYTICAL	  FRAMEWORK	   34	  APPENDIX	  A.	  PGCC	  PROJECT:	  YOUTH	  ENGAGEMENT	  SUMMARY	  REPORT	   35	  APPENDIX	  B.1	  DESIGN	  CARDS	   36	  APPENDIX	  B.2	  SCENARIO	  CARDS-­A	   38	  	   APPENDIX	  B.4	  LARGE	  BOARDS	  (24X36)	   42	   www.greenstreetsgame.com  4 How	  to	  use	  this	  handbook	    This guide was developed for the following three reasons: (1) to help facilitators conduct the Green Street Game (GSG); (2) to archive the GSGʼs implementation during the City of Vancouver (CoV) Point Grey-Cornwall Active Transportation Corridors Projectʼs (PGCATC) Youth Engagement Strategy (YES); (3) as part of Adam Kebedeʼs Masters of Urban Planning professional project.   The GSG process requires significant or active facilitation to be run within the recommended times of 45 or 75 minutes. Fortunately, the process can be effectively facilitated with minimal experience with the help of this document. In support of facilitators and the documentation of the GSG process this guide contains the GSG rationale and detailed instructions including examples of the gameplay and all other supporting materials (cards, game boards, etc.). www.greenstreetsgame.com  5 Play	  the	  Green	  Streets	  Game!	  Time	  Required:	   High	  School:	  70	  mins,	  	   Elementary	  School:	  45	  minutes1	  The	  workshops	  vary	  in	  length	  because	  the	  gameplay	  for	  older	  youth	  includes	  greater	  autonomy,	  and	  complicity	  and	  depth	  of	  play	  (i.e.	  more	  scenarios	  Foundational	  Objectives:	  • Players	  are	  to	  discuss	  their	  existing	  transportation	  behaviours	  and	  the	  goals	  they	  have	  for	  active	  transportation	  within	  their	  neighbourhood.	  • Players	  work	  in	  teams	  to	  collaboratively	  redesign	  the	  street	  to	  accommodate	  their	  active	  transportation	  needs.	  	  • Every	  player	  votes	  as	  an	  individual	  and	  at	  the	  end	  of	  the	  game	  the	  team	  with	  the	  most	  votes	  is	  the	  winner	  Learning	  Outcomes:	   • Practice	  Diverse	  Ways	  of	  Knowing:	  Practice	  using	  local	  knowledge;	  practice	  engaging	  in	  kinaesthetic	  and	  experiential	  learning;	  and	  practice	  developing	  social	  Intelligence	  (cognitive,	  emotional,	  and	  compassionate	  empathy).).	  • Team-­‐Based	  Problem	  Solving:	  	  Consensus-­‐based	  decision-­‐making,	  and	  team-­‐based	  problem	  solving.	  • Topics:	  Active	  transportation,	  PGCCATC	  (a	  City	  of	  Vancouver	  public	  process),	  Livability	  • Experience:	  Participation	  in	  a	  civic	  process	                                              1 The duration of the game is based on the playersʼ autonomy, depth and competency, as well as available class time. The high school version requires more time because players are given more autonomy. Older youths are also asked to address more scenarios and their cumulative challenges. The Vancouver School Board periods are also longer for older youth, with 75min periods for secondary students and 45-60min periods for elementary students.  Games	  Can	  Be	  Effective	  Community	  Engagement	  Tools	  	  The	  careful	  application	  of	  game	  mechanics	  can	  incentivize	  cooperative	  strategies	  and	  mitigate	  uncompromising	  or	  exclusionary	  player	  behaviour.	  Subsequently,	  a	  carefully	  designed	  process	  will	  yield	  rich	  representative	  feedback	  as	  the	  ideas	  put	  forth	  will	  be	  collaboratively	  deliberated	  and	  negotiated.	    www.greenstreetsgame.com  6 Description:	   The	  Green	  Streets	  Game	  (GSG)	  is	  a	  comprehensive	  collaborative	  design	  process	  that	  facilitates	  playful	  street	  transformation.	  The	  engagement	  tool’s	  length	  and	  instruction	  are	  adapted	  to	  serve	  both	  elementary	  (45	  minutes)	  and	  high	  school	  students	  (70	  minutes).	  The	  GSG	  is	  team-­‐based	  game	  where	  players	  will	  be	  in	  competition	  with	  each	  other	  but	  incentivized	  to	  collaborate	  and	  achieve	  consensus	  amongst	  their	  teammates.	  Players	  are	  to	  produce	  street	  designs	  based	  on	  the	  ideas	  and	  aspirations	  generated	  from	  an	  initial	  brainstorm.	  Every	  player	  has	  one	  vote	  and	  at	  the	  end	  of	  process	  the	  team	  with	  the	  most	  votes	  wins.	  Players	  cast	  their	  votes	  based	  on	  two	  factors;	  (1)	  ideas	  and	  aspirations	  generated	  in	  the	  group	  brainstorm;	  (2)	  and	  their	  individual	  preferences.	  Accordingly,	  players	  need	  to	  work	  cooperatively	  and	  collaborate	  on	  the	  design-­‐	  if	  you	  can’t	  get	  the	  person	  beside	  you	  to	  go	  along	  with	  the	  your	  design,	  how	  are	  you	  going	  to	  get	  others	  to	  vote	  for	  the	  design?	  	  	  ‘Fun,	  Safe	  &	  Easy’	   The	  City	  of	  Vancouver	  wants	  feedback	  on	  local	  youths’	  concerns	  regarding	  inclines/slope,	  traffic,	  ‘greening,’	  programming	  and	  route	  selection.	  These	  terms	  are	  jargon,	  and	  both	  youth	  and	  adults	  have	  trouble	  engaging	  with	  them.	  To	  address	  this	  issue	  and	  encourage	  engagement,	  the	  GSG	  introduces	  the	  simple	  rubric	  of	  Fun,	  Safe	  &	  Easy.	  	  	  Using	  more	  accessible	  terminology	  allows	  participants	  to	  better	  understand	  and	  contribute	  based	  on	  their	  local	  knowledge	  and	  preferences.	  	  	   Fun	  is	  the	  idea	  that	  place	  or	  design	  could	  spark	  enjoyment.	  Safe	  allows	  for	  a	  more	  personal	  reflection	  of	  local	  concerns.	  Easy	  is	  about	  making	  things	  accessible	  to	  those	  involved.	   www.greenstreetsgame.com  7 GSG	  is	  not	  a	  traditional	  board	  game	  as	  the	  process	  requires	  facilitation	  from	  a	  lead	  facilitator	  and	  several	  team	  facilitators.	  That	  being	  said,	  like	  board	  games,	  a	  common	  playing	  surfaces	  and	  role-­‐playing/simulations	  are	  employed.	  Drawing	  inspiration	  from	  Friere’s	  Education	  Empower	  Model	  (EMM),	  facilitators	  are	  to	  engage	  with	  players	  as	  co-­‐learners.	  This	  non-­‐hierarchical	  dynamic	  divides	  responsibility	  and	  authority	  equally	  amongst	  all	  participants.	  Inspired	  by	  popular	  education	  models,	  the	  GSG	  embraces	  the	  following	  three	  sequences:	  	  1)	  Local	  youth	  have	  experienced	  the	  barriers	  and	  opportunities	  for	  active	  transportation	  in	  their	  neighbourhoods.	  Using	  their	  local	  knowledge	  of	  the	  built	  environment,	  players	  are	  to	  generate	  group	  themes	  by	  identifying	  strengths	  and	  aspirations	  for	  public	  space;	  	  	  	  2)	  Next,	  facilitators	  introduce	  potential	  problems	  and	  provoke	  player	  discussion	  regarding	  the	  challenges	  and	  potential	  of	  the	  street;	  	  	  3)	  Then,	  the	  game-­‐play	  and	  player	  engagement	  culminates	  in	  the	  ‘Large	  Board’	  and	  ‘vote’	  activities	  where	  players	  will	  negotiate,	  reflect	  upon	  and	  navigate	  teammates’	  and	  classmates’	  personalities,	  priorities,	  and	  game	  constraints.	   	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  1 Background	  	  What:	  The	  GSG	  is	  a	  collaborative	  public	  space	  board	  game	  that	  was	  implemented	  as	  part	  of	  the	  Point	  Grey	  Cornwall	  Corridor	  project’s	  (PGCC)	  youth	  engagement	  strategy.	  The	  CoV	  sought	  youth	  feedback	  from	  local	  youths	  regarding	  their	  active	  transportation	  needs	  and	  aspirations	  of	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’	  design	  principles.	  The	  GSG	  is	  a	  public	  engagement	  mechanism	  that	  carefully	  applies	  game	  thinking	  to	  make	  active	  transportation	  design	  elements	  and	  concepts	  accessible	  and	  promote	  inclusive	  decision-­‐making	  through	  a	  collaborative	  process.	  	  	  The	  game	  is	  collaborative	  by	  design:	  all	  players	  share	  in	  the	  rewards	  and	  risks	  and	  a	  consensus-­‐based	  approach	  is	  the	  best	  way	  to	  win	  the	  game.	  The	  game	  is	  participant-­‐driven,	  with	  players	  brainstorming	  together	  to	  determine	  the	  winning	  scenario,	  working	  in	  teams	  to	  re-­‐design	  neighbourhood	  streets,	  and	  then	  voting	  as	  individuals	  for	  their	  preferred	  design.	  Youth	  express	  their	  design	  preferences	  by	  redesigning	  “boards”	  or	  neighbourhood	  “maps”	  containing	  local	  street	  typologies	  (fig.2).	  A	  summary	  of	  the	  redesigned	  maps	  is	  then	  compiled	  and	  described	  in	  a	  report	  to	  decision-­‐makers.	  	  Why:	  There	  are	  ethical	  and	  pragmatic	  reasons	  for	  a	  governing	  body	  to	  seek	  public	  engagement.	  In	  Kitchen	  Table	  Sustainability,	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  2                                         Sarkissian	  (2003)	  provides	  two	  reasons	  for	  community	  engagement:	  	   1)	  It	  is	  ethical:	  In	  democratic	  society,	  those	  whose	  livelihoods,	  environments,	  and	  lives	  are	  at	  stake	  should	  be	  consulted	  and	  involved	  in	  the	  decisions	  that	  affect	  them	  directly.	  	  2)	  It	  is	  pragmatic:	  Support	  for	  programs	  and	  policies	  often	  depend	  on	  people’s	  willingness	  to	  assist	  the	  process.	  It	  is	  also	  often	  necessary	  because	  “if	  planners	  will	  not	  involve	  the	  citizens	  [they]	  will	  involve	  themselves”.	  1	  Active Transportation Corridor: Seaside Greenway Completion and York Bikeway (Phase 1 of Point Grey-Cornwall Active Transportation Corridor) - 10182  7    Figure 1 - Phase 2 Design Proposal  Figure 1 Point Grey Road-Cornwall Ave Active Transportation Corridor  Project Games	  and	  Community:	  	  	  A	  game	  is	  a	  shared	  experience,	  and	  can	  therefore	  reinforce	  relationships	  and	  bridge	  gaps	  between	  players’	  divergent	  lived-­‐experiences	  (Skoumpourdi	  &	  Kalavassis,	  2007).	  With	  respect	  to	  inclusive	  decision-­‐making,	  in	  collaborative	  games	  all	  players	  “are	  unified	  and	  share	  the	  rewards	  or	  penalties	  of	  their	  decisions”	  (Delgado	  2014).	  This	  encourages	  strategies	  that	  demand	  collaborative	  decisions	  (Radner	  &	  Marschak,	  1972;	  Zagal	  et	  al.,	  2006).	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  3      	  Public	  engagement	  has	  historically	  been	  heralded	  as	  a	  curative	  intervention	  to	  civic	  malaise.	  Yet	  there	  is	  a	  new	  recognition	  for	  more	  inclusive	  opportunities,	  variation	  and	  added	  vigour.	  An	  issue	  that	  many	  communities	  face,	  including	  the	  City	  of	  Vancouver,	  is	  that	  residents	  in	  cities	  can	  be	  overwhelmingly	  lonely	  and	  bothered	  by	  what	  they	  perceive	  to	  be	  resident	  withdrawal	  from	  community.	  In	  Vancouver,	  loneliness	  or	  social	  isolation	  correlates	  with	  negative	  social	  outcomes	  including	  poor	  physical	  and	  mental	  health,	  poverty	  and	  death	  (Vancouver’s	  Engaged	  City	  Task	  Force,	  Vancouver	  Foundation).	  	  	  	  Who:	  Youth	  are	  particularly	  vulnerable	  in	  the	  urban	  environment.	  For	  instance,	  Canadian	  youth	  are	  becoming	  increasingly	  sedentary	  (Bruce	  and	  Katzmarzyk,	  2002;	  Craig	  et	  al.,	  1999).	  Active	  transportation	  dramatically	  increases	  physical	  activity,	  which	  helps	  reduces	  obesity	  and	  the	  onset	  of	  type	  II	  diabetes	  among	  people	  under	  18	  (Appleyard,	  2003;	  Anon,	  1993;	  Cooper	  et	  al,	  2003;	  Boarnet,	  2005).	  If	  municipalities	  can	  adapt	  their	  public	  engagement	  process	  to	  meet	  the	  unique	  needs	  of	  youth,	  better	  health	  outcomes	  may	  be	  more	  achievable.	  	  	  Youth	  engagement	  processes	  have	  traditionally	  been	  plagued	  both	  by	  society’s	  often	  dismissal	  of	  youth,	  and	  by	  applying	  inappropriate	  engagement	  strategies	  and	  mechanisms.	  The	  needs	  and	  preferences	  of	  young	  people	  are	  different	  than	  those	  of	  adults,	  and	  therefore	  we	  cannot	  assume	  the	  same	  treatment	  (Talen	  and	  Coffindaffer	  1999;	  Terrible	  2000).	  The	  needs	  and	  preferences	  of	  young	  people	  are	  Education	  Empowerment	  Model:	  	  In	  the	  first	  stage	  of	  the	  GSG,	  Generating	  Group	  Themes,	  participants	  are	  asked	  to	  speak	  to	  their	  personal	  experiences	  and	  identify	  the	  needs	  of	  their	  communities.	  The	  facilitator	  does	  not	  have	  authority	  over	  participants,	  but	  rather	  acts	  as	  a	  co-­‐learner.	  During	  the	  second	  stage,	  Proposing	  Problems,	  facilitators	  encourage	  collaborative	  inquiry	  by	  exploring	  thought-­‐provoking	  scenarios	  that	  generate	  questions	  from	  the	  participants.	  There	  are	  no	  simple	  solutions;	  this	  stage	  is	  instead	  intended	  to	  illustrate	  the	  multiple	  dimensions	  of	  the	  participants’	  lives	  with	  “a	  sociocultural,	  political,	  historical,	  and	  economic	  perspective”	  (Rindner,	  2004,	  p.80).	  In	  the	  final	  stage,	  Act-­‐Reflect-­‐Act,	  participants	  enter	  their	  community	  not	  as	  recipients	  of	  knowledge,	  but	  as	  informed	  agents	  with	  an	  increase	  awareness	  of	  their	  socio-­‐economic	  reality	  and	  the	  ability	  to	  transform	  their	  surroundings.	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  4 different	  than	  adults,	  and	  we	  cannot	  assume	  the	  same	  treatment	  for	  both.	  Youth	  is	  a	  transitional	  life	  stage	  between	  childhood	  and	  adulthood.	  The	  use	  of	  age-­‐based	  criteria	  or	  biological	  and	  psychological	  factors	  in	  defining	  youth	  is	  challenging,	  for	  it	  is	  widely	  inconsistent	  across	  the	  literature	  (Furstenberg,	  2000;	  Galland,	  2001;	  Gauthier,	  2000).	  1	  	  In	  the	  City	  of	  Vancouver,	  a	  person	  is	  considered	  a	  youth	  depending	  on	  the	  context	  and	  age	  based	  criteria.	  Age	  ranges	  for	  youth	  include	  9-­‐24,1	  13-­‐24,1	  or	  15-­‐24.	  Overall	  there	  are	  a	  multitude	  of	  factors	  that	  affect	  the	  transition	  in	  and	  out	  of	  the	  life	  stage	  of	  youth	  (Elder	  et	  al.,	  2005).	  	  	  	  	  How:	  	  Incorporating	  youth	  best	  practices	  and	  gamification,	  the	  GSG	  is	  underpinned	  by	  Friere’s	  three-­‐stage	  Empowering	  Education	  Model	  (EEM);	  	  	  (1)	  generate	  group	  themes	  	  (2)	  pose	  problems	  and	  	  (3)	  act-­‐reflect-­‐act.	  	  EEM	  is	  a	  pedagogical	  framework	  where	  participants	  are	  not	  considered	  passive	  objects	  but	  subjects	  that	  collaborate,	  inquire,	  create	  new	  knowledge	  and	  “new	  understanding	  across	  divisions	  of	  power,”	  building	  self-­‐esteem	  and	  social	  change	  (Freire	  1970).	  	  Based	  on	  a	  review	  of	  three	  decades	  youth	  processes,	  Franks’	  Five	  Gamification:	  	  	  Gamification	  is	  the	  “careful	  and	  considered	  application	  of	  game	  thinking	  to	  solving	  problems	  and	  encouraging	  learning	  using	  all	  the	  elements	  of	  games	  that	  are	  appropriate.”	  (Kapp	  2012)	  Game	  Mechanics:	  	  Game	  mechanics	  are	  the	  components	  of	  a	  game	  including	  turns,	  cards,	  scenario,	  aesthetics,	  points,	  and	  leaderboards.	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  5 	   Lessons	  for	  Youth	  Participation	  establishes	  	  ”a	  standard	  for	  good	  practice;”	  	  (1)	  Give	  youth	  responsibility	  and	  voice;	  	  (2)	  Build	  youth	  capacity;	  	  (3)	  Encourage	  youthful	  styles	  of	  working;	  	  (4)	  Involve	  adults	  throughout	  the	  process;	  	  (5)	  Adapt	  the	  sociopolitical	  context.	  	  	  	  Gamification	  is	  an	  opportunity	  to	  solve	  problems	  and	  encourage	  capacity	  building	  in	  an	  inclusive	  manner	  (Thatcher,	  1990).	  This	  is	  because	  games	  are	  an	  abstraction	  of	  reality	  whereby	  complex	  systems	  are	  easier	  to	  explore	  and	  risk	  unfamiliar	  solutions	  (Kapp,	  2012;	  Hoffman,	  2009).	  In	  games	  existing	  social	  dynamics	  persist,	  like	  strong-­‐arming,	  bullying,	  teasing,	  snickering,	  racial	  &	  social	  biases	  (Cite).	  However,	  the	  status	  quo	  can	  be	  challenged	  by	  certain	  game	  mechanics,	  like	  roleplay,	  that	  and	  create	  new	  understandings	  and	  empathy	  (Cite).	  Accordingly,	  this	  medium	  is	  a	  treasure	  trove	  of	  tools	  for	  individual	  and	  community	  development	  (Barta	  &	  Schaelling,	  1998).	  	  	  A	  strong	  indicator	  of	  effective	  game	  design	  is	  enabling	  an	  immersive	  and	  effortless	  state	  of	  focused	  engagement	  knows	  as	  ‘Flow’	  (Mihaly	  Csikszentmihalyi	  1991).	  A	  curve	  of	  interest	  illustrates	  this	  degree	  of	  focused	  engagement	  a	  player	  experiences	  throughout	  the	  gameplay	  (Kapp	  2012).	  This	  is	  because	  a	  player	  cannot	  maintain	  focused	  play	  if	  a	  gameplay’s	  level	  of	  interest	  is	  not	  stable	  or	  increasing	  (Kapp	  2012).	  Thus	  this	  descriptive	  model	  is	  helpful	  in	  mapping	  the	  careful	  application	  of	  game	  thinking	  through	  the	  gameplay	  and	  is	  available	  to	  facilitators	  on	  page	  (please	  refer	  to	  table	  m.	  p.	  b).	  	  	  	  	   	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  6  Franks	  Five	  Lessons	  for	  Youth	  Participation	  &	  GSG	  Table	  1	  Frank’s	  Five	  Lessons	  for	  Youth	  Participation	  &	  GSG	  Lessons	   Examples	  Give	  youth	  responsibility	  and	  voice.	  The	  inequity	  of	  power	  between	  youth	  participants	  and	  adults	  must	  be	  addressed,	  as	  “when	  adults	  relinquish	  some	  power	  and	  provide	  youth	  with	  greater	  autonomy	  their	  motivation	  to	  participate	  increases“	  (Frank	  2006).	  Players	  determine	  the	  design	  preferences	  in	  the	  Brainstorm	  and	  decide	  which	  design	  wins	  in	  the	  Vote!	  	  Build	  youth	  capacity.	  A	  public	  process	  is	  likely	  to	  be	  a	  new	  experience	  for	  youth	  that	  can	  reduce	  “the	  gap	  between	  the	  demands	  of	  planning	  processes	  and	  young	  people’s	  capabilities	  by	  building	  youth	  knowledge,	  skills,	  and	  confidence”	  (Frank:	  Baldassori	  et	  al.	  1987;	  Lorenzo	  1997:	  Checkoway	  et	  al.	  2003).	  	  Mini-­‐Street	  Design	  phase	  builds	  upon	  players’	  understanding	  of	  street	  design	  and	  introduces	  players	  to	  the	  GSG	  design	  tools.	  	  	  Encourage	  youthful	  styles	  of	  working.	  Eliciting	  youth	  participation	  on	  their	  terms	  is	  important,	  and	  effective	  techniques	  tend	  to	  facilitate	  dynamic,	  interactive,	  social,	  expressive,	  challenging,	  and	  constructive	  environments	  (Malone	  1999;	  Alparone	  and	  Rissotto	  2001;	  Corsi	  2002;	  Horelli	  and	  Kaaja	  2002).	  	  The	  GSG	  implements	  game	  thinking	  to	  maintain	  players	  focus,	  first	  by	  jumping	  into	  a	  spontaneous	  brainstorm,	  and	  sustaining	  focus	  by	  facilitating	  a	  win-­‐scenario	  and	  voting!	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  1 Involve	  adults	  throughout	  the	  process.	  Adults	  play	  a	  vital	  role	  in	  youth	  engagement.	  Advocacy	  for	  youth	  voices,	  assistance	  in	  accessing	  resources,	  and	  building	  youth	  competences	  are	  all	  critical	  components	  of	  youth	  engagement	  that	  can	  be	  provided	  by	  adults.	  That	  being	  said,	  a	  balance	  is	  important,	  as	  youth	  will	  still	  need	  the	  freedom	  or	  space	  to	  grow	  and	  develop	  responsibility.	  Adults	  provide	  instructional	  support	  and	  can	  share	  technical	  knowledge.	  Adapt	  the	  socio-­‐political	  context.	  The	  normative	  socio-­‐political	  system	  is	  adult-­‐centric	  and	  adaptation	  to	  a	  youth-­‐friendly	  context	  is	  critical	  to	  effectively	  serve	  the	  needs	  of	  this	  demographic	  (Franks:	  Alparone	  and	  Rissotto	  2001;	  Corsi	  2002;	  Horelli	  and	  Kaaja	  2002).	  	  	  Make	  decision-­‐makers	  accessible	  to	  youth	  by	  inviting	  planners	  and	  councillors	  to	  facilitate	  or	  play	  and	  join	  a	  team.	  	    www.greenstreetsgame.com  2 GSG	  Pre-­‐Play	  Checklist	  (30	  Players)	  Resources/	  Prep:	  	    Set up the classroom according to pre-game instructions	   Pre-­‐game	  facilitator	  instructional	  huddle	  (10	  minutes)	   30	  active	  transportation	  surveys	  per	  game	   Stopwatch	   Accessible	  chalk	  and	  chalkboard	  	   Collaborative	  Street	  Design	  Maps	  (6)	   GSG	  Team	  Packages	  per	  class	  	  (6)	  	   o Markers/Pencil	  Crayons,	  	  o (1)	  Deck	  of	  design	  cards,	  	  	  o (6)	  Mini-­‐Street	  Design	  Booklet	  (Street	  Design	  101,	  Overview	  of	  GSG	  game-­‐play,	  Individual	  ‘Board’	  or	  Map),	  	  o Scenario	  Cards-­‐A.	  	  	  Facilitators	  Required:	  Six	  facilitators	  are	  required	  for	  to	  run	  a	  game	  with	  30	  students.	  	  Foundational	  Objectives:	  Facilitators	  and	  players	  are	  co-­‐learners.	  The	  role	  of	  the	  facilitators	  is	  to	  provide	  instruction	  that	  will	  encourage	  player	  participation,	  ideas	  and	  collaboration.	  	  	    Lead	  Facilitator	  (1):	  Facilitates	  the	  introduction/brainstorm,	  and	  coordinates	  the	  final	  present	  back	  and	  vote.	  Additional	  responsibilities	  include	  time	  keeping	  and	  supporting	  the	  Team	  Facilitators.	   Scribe	  (1):	  During	  the	  introduction/brainstorm	  a	  team	  facilitator	  will	  act	  as	  scribe	  (i.e.	  write	  the	  ideas	  on	  the	  board).	   Team	  Facilitators	  (5):	  Each	  team	  of	  4-­‐6	  players	  will	  have	  one	  team	  facilitator.	  A	  team	  facilitator	  is	  the	  immediate	  resources	  person	  for	  that	  team.	  They	  will	  facilitate	  the	  Mini	  Street	  Design,	  and	  Green	  Street	  Team	  Transformation.	  .	  	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  3 GSG	  Gameplay	  Summary	   	  	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  4 Game	  Tools	  Design	  Cards:	  	  Slightly	  smaller	  than	  conventional	  playing	  cards,	  the	  design	  cards	  feature	  illustrated	  urban	  design	  elements.	  These	  cards	  include	  design	  element	  like	  benches,	  public	  art,	  community	  gardens,	  and	  farmers’	  markets.	  The	  design	  cards	  are	  used	  during	  the	  design	  activities	  (Mini	  Street	  Design	  and	  Group	  Street	  Design).	  These	  cards	  encourage	  the	  players	  to	  communicate	  with	  each	  other,	  and	  can	  act	  as	  place	  makers	  to	  help	  spark	  player	  creativity!	  Players	  that	  are	  uncomfortable	  drawing	  can	  use	  the	  design	  cards	  to	  communicate	  their	  ideas.	  .	  Scenario	  Cards:	  	  The	  scenario	  cards	  can	  be	  used	  in	  both	  design	  activities,	  but	  must	  be	  used	  in	  the	  Group	  Street	  Design.	  They	  provide	  players	  with	  active	  transportation	  challenges	  to	  solve.	  Scenarios	  can	  be	  thought-­‐provoking	  and	  generate	  activity	  amongst	  players.	  	  Moreover,	  they	  provide	  risk-­‐free	  opportunities	  to	  explore	  challenging	  realities	  and	  empathize	  with	  others’	  experiences.	  Scenarios	  can	  also	  be	  used	  to	  prompt	  stalled	  play.	  Street	  Design	  101:	  	  	  This	  is	  a	  quick	  learning	  tool	  that	  is	  designed	  to	  use	  experiential	  or	  local	  knowledge	  amongst	  its	  players.	  The	  tool	  features	  three	  street	  typologies	  and	  challenges	  participants	  to	  think	  about	  different	  types	  of	  streets	  and	  the	  sometimes-­‐surprising	  ways	  that	  they	  serve	  different	  transportation	  needs.	  Player	  are	  asked	  to	  draw	  on	  knowledge	  of	  their	  neighbourhoods.	  	  	   Above:	  Design	  Cards	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  5  20   Urban Design Elements: In addition to pre-existing design elements such as street lights, bike lanes, benches, bike racks and bollards, the Team created new cards to address the context of a project that connects waterfront greenspace, commercial and residential zones, and multiple school catchment areas. New cards included: ! Drinking water fountains ! Public restrooms ! Wayfinding signs ! Covered areas SCHOOLSCHOOL YARDPARKPARKINGSIDEWALKBIKE ROUTEMAIN STREETGROCER BAKERY TEA SUSHIBURGERSNEIGHBOURHOOD STREETNEIGHBOURHOOD STREETWHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ON YOUR STREETS?WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ON YOUR STREETS?STOP SIGNMAP LEGENDCROSS WALKBIKE ROUTETRAFFIC LIGHTTRAFFIC CIRCLECOLLABORATIVE STREET DESIGN MAPIndividual	  ‘Board’	  or	  Map:	  	  This	  is	  a	  small	  map	  of	  a	  street	  and	  intersection	  for	  individuals	  to	  practice	  using	  the	  GSG	  tools	  and	  visualizing	  their	  ideas.	  Using	  this	  tool	  as	  an	  individual	  is	  important	  because	  people	  feel	  more	  comfortable	  attempting	  a	  process	  without	  the	  pressure	  of	  their	  peers.	  It	  is	  important	  not	  to	  overwhelm	  players	  and	  increase	  challenges	  incrementally.	  	  	  	  The	  tool	  has	  features	  like	  a	  grid	  pattern	  and	  some	  traffic	  calming	  interventions	  (stop	  signs,	  cross	  walk).	  The	  grid	  pattern	  offers	  a	  spatial	  challenge	  to	  the	  players	  by	  asking	  them	  to	  operate	  within	  its	  constraints.	  Group	  Street	  Design	  Map:	   This	  map	  is	  where	  players’	  ideas	  and	  concerns	  are	  debated,	  negotiated,	  and	  then	  illustrated.	  Subsequently,	  maps	  are	  the	  main	  source	  of	  feedback	  for	  the	  sponsor	  once	  they	  are	  collected,	  labelled,	  and	  analyzed.	  The	  map	  features	  representative	  proportions	  of	  local	  road	  typologies,	  with	  traffic	  calming	  and	  active	  transportation	  infrastructure	  present	  on	  each	  board.	  There	  are	  a	  total	  of	  four	  roads	  and	  two	  areas	  featured:	  a	  main	  street,	  a	  bike	  route,	  a	  right	  neighbourhood	  street	  (park	  and	  schoolyard	  adjacency),	  a	  left	  neighbourhood	  street	  (residential	  and	  school	  adjacency),	  a	  park,	  a	  school,	  and	  a	  schoolyard.	  A	  grid	  pattern	  is	  also	  used	  to	  provide	  spatial	  context.	  	  	  	  Below:	  Group	  Street	  Design	  Map	  &	  Legend	  (right)	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  6 	  6	  GSG	  Team	  Package:	  	  To	  facilitate	  smooth	  transitions	  and	  storage	  of	  materials,	  compile	  them	  into	  what	  is	  necessary	  for	  one	  team	  to	  play	  through	  a	  process.	  Items	  include	  the	  following:	  	  	  o Markers/pencil	  crayons	  o Deck	  of	  design	  cards	  (1)	  o Mini-­‐Street	  Design	  Booklet	  (Street	  Design	  101,	  Overview	  of	  GSG	  game-­‐play,	  Individual	  ‘Board’	  or	  Map)	  (6)	  o Scenario	  Cards	  A	  	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  7 Pre-­‐Game	  Class	  Room	  Set-­‐Up:	  	  Description:	  The	  workshop	  requires	  a	  particular	  classroom	  set-­‐up.	  Players	  will	  participate	  in	  various	  manners	  as	  individuals,	  in	  teams	  of	  4-­‐6,	  and	  as	  a	  classroom.	  The	  following	  instructions	  will	  ensure	  a	  game	  ready	  classroom/space:	  	  	   Arrange	  desks	  in	  pods	  of	  4-­‐6	  students,	  desks	  facing	  inward.	  There	  should	  be	  enough	  space	  in	  the	  center	  for	  all	  members	  of	  the	  group	  to	  draw	  with	  ease	  on	  one	  large	  map	  (1.4m	  by	  1.4m).	  	   All	  participants	  need	  to	  able	  to	  see	  a	  central	  chalkboard	  or	  alternative	  large	  writing	  surface.	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  8 All	  Pre-­‐Game	  Facilitator	  Instructional	  Huddle	  	  Description	  	  Ten	  minutes	  prior	  to	  the	  GSG,	  the	  lead	  facilitator	  is	  to	  gather	  the	  team	  facilitators	  in	  a	  huddle	  and	  review	  the	  gameplay	  (instructions),	  provide	  materials,	  adapt	  to	  the	  classroom	  configuration	  and	  address	  any	  unforeseen	  concerns.	  	  	  Note:	  Prior	  to	  the	  game	  day	  facilitators	  are	  to	  be	  provided	  with	  comprehensive	  instruction	  (this	  manual).	  This	  limited	  instructional-­‐huddle	  assumes	  facilitators	  have	  prior	  experience	  in	  facilitation,	  are	  familiar	  with	  GSG,	  and	  have	  a	  basic	  understanding	  of	  urban	  design	  and	  active	  transportation.	  	  Instructions	  	  The	  lead	  facilitator	  is	  to	  guide	  this	  activity.	  	  1. Review	  Instructions.	  i. Review	  the	  GSG	  process	  (i.e.	  game-­‐play)	  with	  the	  GSG	  Gameplay	  Overview.	  ii. Remind	  team	  facilitators	  of	  the	  time	  constraints	  and	  that	  they	  will	  be	  provided	  with	  one-­‐minute	  warnings.	  2. Distribute	  players	  among	  available	  facilitators	  and	  tables.	  3. Address	  any	  unforeseen	  questions.	  4. Provide	  materials	  for	  each	  instructor	  and	  ask	  them	  to	  review	  the	  contents.	  	   	  Materials	  Per	  Team	  Facilitator:	  	   Collaborative	  Street	  Design	  Map	  (1)	  	   	  GSG	  Team	  Packages	  per	  class:1	  (1)	  o Markers/Pencil	  Crayons	  	  o Deck	  of	  design	  cards	  (1)	  o Mini-­‐Street	  Design	  Booklet	  (Street	  Design	  101,	  Overview	  of	  GSG	  Gameplay,	  Individual	  ‘Board’	  or	  Map)	  (6)	  	  o Scenario	  Cards-­‐A	  	   Collaborative	  Street	  Design	  Map	  (1)	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  9 Gameplay	  Summary	  GSG	  Foundational	  Objective:	  Players	  are	  to	  collaboratively	  redesign	  neighbourhood	  streets	  to	  accommodate	  their	  active	  transportation	  needs.	  	  Phase	   HS:	  Time	  2	   ES:	  Time	   Foundational	  Objective	   Description	  &	  Facilitation	  Pre-­‐Game	  Room	  Prep	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   The	  GSG	  requires	  a	  particular	  classroom	  set-­‐up.	  Players	  will	  participate	  in	  various	  manners	  as	  individuals,	  in	  teams	  of	  4-­‐6,	  and	  as	  a	  classroom.	  The	  following	  instructions	  will	  ensure	  a	  game	  ready	  classroom/space.	  Pre-­‐Game	  Instructional	  Huddle	   10	   10	   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐	   Ten	  minutes	  prior	  to	  the	  GSG,	  the	  lead	  facilitator	  is	  to	  gather	  the	  team	  facilitators	  in	  a	  huddle	  and	  review	  the	  gameplay	  (instructions),	  provide	  materials,	  adapt	  to	  the	  classroom	  configuration	  and	  address	  any	  unforeseen	  concerns.	  	  Intro	  &	  Brainstorm	   10	   6	   Encourage	  players	  to	  draw	  upon	  their	  experiential	  knowledge	  and	  share	  their	  observations	  and	  aspirations	  for	  local	  active	  transportation	  (i.e.	  local	  knowledge).	  	  A	  class-­‐wide	  introduction	  to	  the	  topic	  through	  a	  brainstorm	  on	  the	  term	  ‘livability.’	  The	  activity	  influences	  the	  rest	  of	  the	  game,	  because	  the	  player-­‐generated	  brainstorm	  is	  the	  criteria	  to	  win	  the	  GSG.	  Prompt	  participation	  by	  asking	  players	  to	  share	  their	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’	  active	  transportation	  ideas.	  Mini	  Street	  Design	  12	   6	  From	  this	  point	  until	  the	  vote	  all	  activities	  will	  be	  facilitated	  in	  teams	  of	  4-­‐8	  players.	  Use	  the	  ‘Mini-­‐Street	  Design	  Booklet’	  to	  build	  your	  team’s	  knowledge	  of	  street	  design	  &	  the	  GSG	  tools	  (cards,	  maps,	  &	  drawings).	  First	  discuss	  different	  street	  types,	  and	  then	  ask	  players	  to	  redesign	  a	  street	  individually.	  This	  activity	  introduces	  the	  player	  to	  the	  different	  types	  of	  streets,	  familiarizing	  them	  with	  GSG	  gameplay	  and	  tools.	  Team	  facilitators	  engage	  players	  in	  their	  small	  groups	  and	  with	  the	  help	  of	  the	  Mini	  Street	  Design	  Booklet	  will	  learn	  about	  streets.	  Next	  players	  will	  individually	  redesign	  a	  street	  using	  the	  brainstorm	  and	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’	  design	  principles.	                                              2 Elementary school version is 45 mins www.greenstreetsgame.com  10 Share	  Back	  10	   5	   Build	  player	  capacity	  to	  communicate	  ideas	  through	  various	  means	  (i.e.	  orally,	  using	  their	  small	  design	  map,	  using	  the	  design	  cards)	  	  This	  activity	  builds	  upon	  the	  last	  by	  encouraging	  the	  players	  to	  practice	  using	  the	  GSG	  design	  tools	  (i.e.	  small	  design	  maps	  &	  design	  cards)	  for	  peer-­‐to-­‐peer	  communication,	  a	  critical	  component	  of	  collaboration.	  Facilitate	  a	  ‘share	  back’	  of	  one	  or	  two	  design	  solutions	  generated	  in	  ‘mini	  street	  design’	  (max	  	  45-­‐60s	  each).	  Green	  Street	  Team	  Transformation!	  	  *3	   25	   18	   Build	  capacity	  to	  collaboratively	  and	  inclusively	  dialogue	  challenging	  concepts	  amongst	  one’s	  peers.	  Green	  Street	  Team	  Transformation	  is	  the	  heart	  of	  the	  GSG	  process,	  because	  this	  activity	  is	  where	  youth	  feedback/preferences	  are	  collected	  for	  the	  sponsor	  (CoV).	  In	  teams	  players	  are	  to	  transform	  the	  street	  in	  response	  to	  the	  scenario	  cards.	  Support	  your	  team	  as	  needed,	  but	  give	  enough	  space	  for	  autonomous	  play.	  Remind	  your	  team	  that	  to	  win	  they	  must	  attract	  the	  most	  votes	  and	  that	  collaboration	  is	  the	  best	  strategy.	  Present	  Back/Vote	   15	   8	   Experience	  actively	  participating	  in	  civil	  society	  (i.e.	  advocating	  for	  the	  public	  and	  casting	  your	  support-­‐vote).	  	  Every	  team	  is	  to	  present	  their	  map	  to	  the	  class	  in	  1-­‐2	  minutes.	  Players	  will	  cast	  their	  votes	  based	  on	  the	  brainstorms	  and	  their	  active	  transportation	  design	  preferences.	  Help	  your	  team	  summarize	  and	  present	  their	  ideas.	  Summary	  3	   2	   Validate	  players’	  capacities	  and	  work;	  encourage	  greater	  participation	  in	  civic	  processes	  and	  civil	  society.	  	  The	  lead	  facilitator	  is	  to	  give	  a	  short	  summary.	  Acknowledge	  the	  participants’	  valuable	  contributions	  by	  verbalizing	  the	  challenge	  they	  have	  overcome,	  summarizing	  their	  ideas,	  and	  explaining	  how	  their	  designs	  are	  to	  be	  used	  by	  the	  city.	  	  	                                               www.greenstreetsgame.com  11 Gamification:	  Game	  Thinking	  &	  Curve	  of	  Interest	  	   	  	  	  	  	  	  A	  strong	  indicator	  of	  effective	  game	  design	  is	  the	  ability	  to	  enable	  an	  immersive	  and	  effortless	  state	  of	  focused	  engagement	  known	  as	  flow.	  The	  GSG	  enables	  players	  to	  flow	  with	  a	  particular	  configuration	  of	  game	  mechanics	  that	  match	  player	  challenge	  with	  their	  increasing	  competence.	  	  	  A	  curve	  of	  interest	  (fig.2)	  illustrates	  the	  degree	  of	  focused	  engagement	  a	  player	  experiences	  throughout	  the	  gameplay.	  A	  player	  cannot	  maintain	  focused	  play	  if	  a	  gameplay’s	  level	  of	  interest	  is	  not	  stable	  or	  increasing.	  This	  descriptive	  model	  (fig	  m)	  is	  therefore	  helpful	  in	  mapping	  the	  careful	  application	  of	  game	  thinking	  through	  the	  gameplay.	  Below,	  GSG	  game	  mechanics	  are	  summarized	  by	  sub-­‐mechanism.	  	  	  Start?Brainstorm-Introduction?Mini Street Design?Present Back?Scenario-Group Street Design?Present Back-Vote?Summary?0	  2	  4	  6	  8	  10	  12	  1	   2	   3	   4	   5	   6	   7	   8	   9	   10	   11	   12	   13	  Relative Level of Interest?Gameplay by Sub-Mechanism?GSG Curve of Interest by Sub-Mechanism?Level of Interest?www.greenstreetsgame.com  12 	  	   Phase	   Game	  Mechanic	  and	  Level	  of	  Interest	  Intro	  &	  Brainstorm	  • Hook:	  Sparks	  the	  interest	  of	  players.	  The	  GSG	  immediately	  jumps	  into	  a	  lively	  brainstorm.	  	  • Clear	  Goal:	  An	  unambiguous	  goal	  is	  fundamental	  to	  immersive	  game	  play.	  A	  clear	  goal	  is	  not	  instructional	  in	  nature;	  it	  is	  clear,	  direct	  and	  simple	  (i.e.	  “kill	  the	  dragon	  or	  be	  killed”	  or	  “win	  the	  most	  votes”).	  • Epic	  Meaning:	  Players	  will	  be	  highly	  motivated	  if	  they	  believe	  they	  are	  working	  to	  achieve	  something	  great,	  awe-­‐inspiring,	  and	  bigger	  than	  themselves.	  Mini	  Street	  Design	  • Aesthetic:	  An	  appropriate	  aesthetic	  can	  reduce	  or	  remove	  noise	  and	  provide	  players	  with	  quick	  access	  to	  information.	  • Achievable	  Tasks	  and	  Scaffolding:	  Scaffolding	  is	  the	  sequential	  practice	  of	  providing	  the	  minimal	  amount	  of	  instruction	  required	  to	  increasing	  players’	  self-­‐sufficiency	  in	  a	  timely	  manner.	  If	  a	  person	  does	  not	  think	  they	  achieve	  the	  task	  they	  will	  disengage	  or	  simply	  never	  start	  in	  the	  first	  place.	  • Choices:	  Empower	  users,	  make	  them	  feel	  engaged	  and	  like	  they	  have	  ownership	  over	  their	  choices.	  Present	  Back	   • Information	  Feedback:	  Builds	  players’	  confidence	  and	  competencies.	  • Aesthetic:	  An	  appropriate	  aesthetic	  can	  reduce	  or	  remove	  ‘noise’	  and	  provide	  players	  with	  quick	  access	  to	  information.	  	  Phase	  Game	  Mechanic	  and	  Level	  of	  Interest	  (-­‐continued)	  Green	  Street	  Team	  TransformatioG	  • Achievable	  Tasks	  and	  Scaffolding:	  	  Scaffolding	  is	  the	  sequential	  practice	  of	  providing	  the	  minimal	  amount	  of	  instruction	  required	  to	  increase	  players’	  self-­‐sufficiency	  in	  a	  timely	  manner.	  If	  a	  person	  does	  not	  think	  they	  achieve	  the	  task	  they	  will	  disengage	  or	  simply	  never	  start	  in	  the	  first	  place.	  • Aesthetic:	  An	  appropriate	  aesthetic	  can	  reduce	  or	  remove	  noise	  and	  provide	  players	  with	  quick	  access	  to	  information.	  • Urgent	  Optimism:	  The	  desire	  to	  act	  immediately	  to	  tackle	  an	  obstacle	  combined	  with	  the	  belief	  that	  we	  have	  a	  reasonable	  hope	  of	  success.	  • Loss	  Aversion:	  Influencing	  the	  player	  behaviour	  not	  through	  reward,	  but	  by	  avoiding	  punishment,	  varying	  punishments	  through	  status,	  a cess,	  power,	  l ss	  of	  resources	   r	  being	  downgraded.	  • Challenges/Scenarios:	  If	  the	  gameplay	  is	  too	  easy,	  the	  players	  will	  not	  try.	  	  • Countdown:	  This	  will	  create	  an	  incentive	  that	  causes	  increased	  initial	  activity.	  Activity	  then	  increases	  frenetically	  until	  time	  runs	  out,	  which	  is	  a	  forced	  extinction.	  • Choices:	  Empower	  users,	  make	  them	  feel	  engaged	  and	  ownership	  over	  their	  choices.	  Present	  &	  Vote!	   • Vote-­‐Win	  	  • Aesthetic:	  An	  appropriate	  aesthetic	  can	  reduce	  or	  remove	  noise	  and	  provide	  players	  with	  quick	  access	  to	  information.	  • Instantaneous:	  Are	  there	  aspects	  of	  your	  experience	  now	  that	  are	  delayed	  but	  could	  be	  more	  exciting	  if	  they	  were	  real-­‐time?	  Summary	   	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  13  Phase	   Game	  Mechanic	  and	  Level	  of	  Interest	  (-­‐continued)	  Green	  Street	  Team	  Transformation!	  • Achievable	  Tasks	  and	  Scaffolding:	  	  Scaffolding	  is	  the	  sequential	  practice	  of	  providing	  the	  minimal	  amount	  of	  instruction	  required	  to	  increase	  players’	  self-­‐sufficiency	  in	  a	  timely	  manner.	  If	  a	  person	  does	  not	  think	  they	  achieve	  the	  task	  they	  will	  disengage	  or	  simply	  never	  start	  in	  the	  first	  place.	  • Aesthetic:	  An	  appropriate	  aesthetic	  can	  reduce	  or	  remove	  noise	  and	  provide	  players	  with	  quick	  access	  to	  information.	  • Urgent	  Optimism:	  The	  desire	  to	  act	  immediately	  to	  tackle	  an	  obstacle	  combined	  with	  the	  belief	  that	  we	  have	  a	  reasonable	  hope	  of	  success.	  • Loss	  Aversion:	  Influencing	  the	  player	  behaviour	  not	  through	  reward,	  but	  by	  avoiding	  punishment,	  varying	  punishments	  through	  status,	  access,	  power,	  loss	  of	  resources	  or	  being	  downgraded.	  • Challenges/Scenarios:	  If	  the	  gameplay	  is	  too	  easy,	  the	  players	  will	  not	  try.	  	  • Countdown:	  This	  will	  create	  an	  incentive	  that	  causes	  increased	  initial	  activity.	  Activity	  then	  increases	  frenetically	  until	  time	  runs	  out,	  which	  is	  a	  forced	  extinction.	  • Choices:	  Empower	  users,	  make	  them	  feel	  engaged	  and	  ownership	  over	  their	  choices.	  Present	  &	  Vote!	  • Vote-­‐Win	  	  • Aesthetic:	  An	  appropriate	  aesthetic	  can	  reduce	  or	  remove	  noise	  and	  provide	  players	  with	  quick	  access	  to	  information.	  • Instantaneous:	  Are	  there	  aspects	  of	  your	  experience	  now	  that	  are	  delayed	  but	  could	  be	  more	  exciting	  if	  they	  were	  real-­‐time?	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  14 START	  High	  School	  Version!	  Foundational	  Objective	  Teams	  are	  to	  collaboratively	  redesign	  the	  street	  to	  accommodate	  their	  active	  transportation	  needs.	  Every	  player	  has	  one	  vote	  and	  at	  the	  end	  of	  the	  game	  the	  team	  with	  the	  most	  votes	  is	  the	  winner!	  	  Time	  required:	  75	  minutes	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  15 Introduction/Brainstorm:	  Time:	  	  10	  mins	  Foundational	  Objectives:	  • Facilitate	  a	  class	  wide	  brainstorm.	  Prompt	  participation	  by	  asking	  players	  to	  share	  their	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’	  active	  transportation	  ideas.	  Encourage	  players	  to	  drawn	  upon	  their	  experiential	  knowledge	  (i.e.	  local	  knowledge).	  Learning	  Outcomes:	  • Collective	  awareness	  of	  neighborhood	  assets	  (local	  knowledge)	  • Livability	  • Their	  ability	  to	  influence	  decision-­‐makers	  • Civic	  Goals	  • Active	  Transportation	  • Experiential	  knowledge	  	   Description:	  	  Begin	  with	  a	  class-­‐wide	  introduction	  to	  the	  topic	  through	  a	  brainstorm	  on	  the	  term	  ‘livability.’4	  The	  player-­‐generated	  brainstorm	  is	  the	  criteria	  to	  win	  the	  GSG.	  As	  a	  result	  the	  brainstorm	  frames	  player	  decision-­‐making	  in	  the	  subsequent	  Mini	  Street	  Design	  and	  Group	  Street	  Design.	  	  	  The	  lead	  facilitator	  is	  to	  use	  engaging	  rounds	  of	  closed	  and	  open	  questions5	  to	  facilitate	  dialogue.	  Dialogue	  in	  the	  brainstorm	  is	  to	  be	  iterative	  and	  collaborative	  as	  participants’	  contributions	  will	  build	  off	  of	  each	  other’s	  input.	  There	                                              4 When working with elementary schools we simplified the brainstorm by asking the following questions “what fun activities do you do in your neighbourhood?” and then moved on to ask “what stops you from doing these activities?” 5 The difference between open and closed questions is the length of the response.  ‘Fun,	  Safe	  &	  Easy’	   The	  City	  of	  Vancouver	  wants	  feedback	  on	  local	  youths’	  concerns	  regarding	  inclines/slope,	  traffic,	  ‘greening,’	  programming	  and	  route	  selection.	  These	  terms	  are	  jargon,	  and	  both	  youth	  and	  adults	  have	  trouble	  engaging	  with	  them.	  To	  address	  this	  issue	  and	  encourage	  engagement,	  the	  GSG	  introduces	  the	  simple	  rubric	  of	  Fun,	  Safe	  &	  Easy.	  	  	  Using	  more	  accessible	  terminology	  allows	  participants	  to	  better	  understand	  and	  contribute	  based	  on	  their	  local	  knowledge	  and	  preferences.	  	  	   Fun	  is	  the	  idea	  that	  place	  or	  design	  could	  spark	  enjoyment.	  Safe	  allows	  for	  a	  more	  personal	  reflection	  of	  local	  concerns.	  Easy	  is	  about	  making	  things	  accessible	  to	  those	  involved.	   www.greenstreetsgame.com  16 should	  be	  at	  least	  two	  levels	  of	  inquiry.	  The	  first	  level	  is	  when	  participants	  are	  introduced	  to	  the	  term	  ‘livability’.	  The	  term	  is	  far	  too	  broad	  and	  inaccessible-­‐	  but	  cut	  the	  term	  down	  to	  just	  ‘live’	  and	  a	  brainstorm	  will	  begin.	  Ask	  “What	  do	  you	  need	  to	  live	  well?”	  	  Based	  on	  the	  answers	  from	  previous	  question	  you	  will	  move	  on	  the	  level	  of	  inquiry	  by	  asking	  “What	  would	  	  [idea/value]	  look	  like	  in	  your	  community?”	  Expand	  even	  further	  by	  prompting	  students	  and	  their	  idea/value	  with	  the	  “How	  could	  [idea/value]	  be	  done	  in	  a	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’	  way?”	  	   	  Resources/	  Prep:	  Chalk,	  board	  and	  surveys	  (one	  per	  participant).	  Place	  one	  survey	  at	  each	  desk	  and	  as	  participants	  arrive	  ask	  them	  to	  fill	  out	  the	  survey.	  The	  survey	  will	  help	  settle	  the	  class,	  and	  get	  people	  thinking	  about	  the	  topic.	  	  Facilitators	  Required:	  2	  • Lead	  Facilitator	  (1)	  • Scribe	  (1)	  Instructions:	  1. Introduce	  yourself	  to	  the	  group	  and	  tell	  them	  that	  you	  here	  on	  to	  seek	  input	  on	  the	  PGCATC	  on	  the	  behalf	  of	  the	  CoV.	  	  2. Tell	  them	  their	  feedback	  can	  influence	  the	  design	  of	  their	  neighbourhood	  by	  influencing	  decision-­‐makers	  at	  the	  COV.	  	  3. Play-­‐	  Communicate	  that	  the	  way	  we	  are	  going	  to	  workshop	  urban	  planning	  is	  by	  playing	  a	  board	  game	  and	  there	  is	  going	  to	  be	  a	  winner!	  4. Map	  the	  community	  assets	  and	  opportunities	  using	  local	  knowledge:6	  a. Write	  ‘Livability’	  on	  the	  board	  and	  break	  it	  to	  ‘live’.	  	  i. Ask	  players	  “What	  do	  they	  need	  to	  live	  in	  their	  community?”	  	  5. Remind	  players	  that	  they	  are	  to	  win	  by	  getting	  the	  most	  votes	  (i.e.	  appealing	  to	  the	  group’s	  values).	  Therefore	  in	  their	  teams	  players	  will	  need	  to	  play	  cooperatively	  and	  collaborate	  on	  the	  design-­‐	  ‘if	  you	  can’t	  get	  the	  person	  beside	  you	  to	  go	  along	  with	  the	  your	  design,	  how	  are	  you	  going	  to	  get	  others	  to	  vote	  for	  the	  design?	  ‘	                                              e.g. Closed Question: Did you cycle to school today? A: Yes/No.          Open Question:  What do you enjoy about your cycle this morning? Fresh air, the sun, etc. Closed questions are ideal to open a subject, they are less daunting to answer and an entire classroom can participate (i.e. hands up). Closed Questions are great way to warm-up or encourage participants to go deeper with Open Questions. Open Questions are the opposite Close Questions, they provide more information and allow the group to go deeper or explore an issue.  6 Encourage group participation and confidence by highlighting the participantsʼ local knowledge and its value. www.greenstreetsgame.com  17 Example	  Script:	  	  	   As	  participants	  arrive	  ask	  them	  to	  fill	  out	  the	  survey.	  The	  survey	  will	  help	  settle	  the	  class,	  and	  get	  people	  thinking	  about	  the	  topic.	  The	  survey	  should	  only	  take	  three	  minutes	  and	  is	  often	  completed	  before	  the	  GSG	  begins.	  	  	  [Both	  facilitators	  will	  stand	  near	  the	  chalkboard]	  	  Today	  we	  are	  going	  to	  play	  a	  game!	  My	  name	  is	  *****	  and	  today	  the	  game	  is	  redesigning	  our	  neighbourhood	  streets!	  This	  is	  a	  competition	  and	  you	  are	  already	  sitting	  with	  your	  team.	  Who	  thinks	  they	  are	  going	  to	  win?	  To	  win	  your	  team	  needs	  to	  get	  the	  most	  votes.	  	  At	  the	  end	  of	  the	  game	  the	  entire	  class	  is	  going	  to	  vote	  on	  which	  team/table	  they	  prefer	  the	  most.	  You	  don’t	  have	  to	  vote	  for	  your	  team,	  if	  you	  like	  somebody	  else’s	  map	  you	  can	  vote	  for	  them.	  Focus	  on	  working	  with	  your	  team.	  If	  you	  can	  design	  your	  streets	  so	  that	  they	  work	  for	  everyone	  at	  your	  table	  you	  are	  more	  likely	  to	  get	  their	  vote	  and	  be	  able	  to	  steal	  votes	  from	  other	  teams.	  The	  people	  you	  are	  sitting	  beside	  are	  your	  team	  and	  you	  need	  work	  with	  them.	  	  	  Raise	  your	  hand	  if	  rode	  your	  bike	  to	  school	  today?	  Raise	  your	  hand	  if	  you	  like	  to	  cycle?	  	  Now	  with	  hands,	  How	  about	  who	  walked	  to	  school	  today?	  	  [Ask	  a	  student	  a	  specific	  student]	  	  What	  do	  you	  enjoy	  about	  your	  ride/walk?	  	  What	  do	  walking,	  cycling,	  and	  skateboarding	  have	  in	  common?	  They	  are	  all	  forms	  of	  active	  transportation.	  Active	  Transportation	  is	  using	  your	  body	  to	  power	  yourself	  around.	  Today	  we	  are	  to	  look	  at	  ways	  to	  make	  your	  neighborhood	  Safe,	  Fun,	  and	  Easy	  to	  get	  around	  using	  your	  body.	  To	  do	  that	  we	  are	  to	  going	  redraw	  our	  streets!	  	  	  	   [Lead:	  The	  intention	  is	  to	  have	  the	  participants	  create	  their	  own	  rubric	  or	  guiding	  principles	  to	  guide	  and	  evaluate	  the	  design.	  When	  asked	  how	  a	  topic	  may	  relate	  to	  livability	  “nature”	  ask	  students	  to	  find	  ways	  to	  implemented	  their	  values	  in	  a	  Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy	  way]	  	  [Write	  in	  the	  center	  of	  the	  board	  “Livability”]	  	  	  On	  the	  board	  we	  have	  a	  word	  call	  “livability”,	  let’s	  break	  it	  down.	  “Live”	  and	  “Ability”.	  	  In	  this	  community	  we	  need	  many	  things	  to	  thrive,	  what	  are	  some	  things	  that	  you	  need	  to	  ‘live’	  well?	  	  [Lead:	  answers	  may	  seem	  off	  topic,	  but	  continue	  to	  engage	  until	  you	  have	  enough	  topics	  to	  transition	  to	  in	  the	  topic	  of	  livability]	  	  [Scribe:	  Write	  down	  on	  the	  board	  as	  much	  as	  you	  can]	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  18 	  Ok	  I	  see	  we	  have	  ‘education’	  on	  the	  board.	  Let’s	  build	  on	  that,	  how	  do	  access	  or	  get	  to	  school?	  	  	  [Refer	  to	  the	  survey	  to	  prompt	  the	  class]	  	  Ok	  you	  use	  the	  bike	  route	  to	  get	  to	  school,	  how	  could	  the	  bike	  path	  be	  designed	  in	  better	  way?	  What	  could	  make	  it	  more	  Fun,	  Safe	  &	  Easy?	  	  	  [Once	  you	  have	  built	  the	  brainstorm	  up	  to	  three	  levels,	  summarize	  and	  tell	  the	  Players	  they	  just	  create	  the	  definition	  of	  winning	  the	  GSG]	  	  Would	  you	  like	  to	  live	  in	  neighbourhood	  that	  has	  these	  ideas/values	  as	  guiding	  principles?	  	  	  	  Great-­‐	  Because	  in	  your	  small	  groups/pods	  you	  are	  about	  to	  redesign	  your	  neighbourhood	  streets	  and	  the	  way	  to	  WIN	  is	  on	  that	  board.	  	  [Transition]	   www.greenstreetsgame.com  19 Mini	  Street	  Design	  Time	  Allocated:	  12	  minutes	   Foundational	  Objective:	  This	  point	  forward	  until	  the	  vote	  all	  activities	  will	  be	  facilitated	  in	  teams	  of	  4-­‐8	  players.	  Use	  the	  ‘Mini-­‐Street	  Design	  Booklet’	  to	  build	  your	  team’s	  knowledge	  of	  street	  design	  &	  the	  GSG	  tools	  (cards,	  maps,	  &	  drawings).	  First	  discuss	  different	  street	  types	  and	  then	  ask	  players	  to	  individually	  redesign	  a	  street.	  	  Learning	  Outcomes	  • Introducing	  participants	  to	  GSG	  tools	  • Preparing	  players	  for	  the	  active	  gameplay	  the	  large	  map	  • Building	  visual	  communication	  skills	  • 	  Description:	  This	  part	  of	  the	  process	  prepares	  the	  players	  for	  the	  large	  street	  design	  by	  introducing	  new	  concepts	  and	  familiarizing	  them	  with	  the	  GSG	  gameplay.	  Following	  the	  brainstorm,	  team	  facilitators	  start	  their	  active	  role	  and	  engage	  players	  in	  their	  small	  groups	  (the	  people	  they	  are	  already	  sitting	  with).	  Team	  facilitators	  will	  distribute	  one	  11x17	  ‘Mini	  Street	  Design	  Booklet’	  to	  each	  player.	  Using	  the	  booklet,	  the	  team	  facilitators	  will	  ask	  for	  local	  examples	  of	  various	  street	  typologies.	  Next	  players	  will	  individually	  redesign	  a	  street	  using	  the	  brainstorm	  and	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’	  design	  principles.	  Team	  facilitators	  will	  incrementally	  prompt	  players	  using	  the	  GSG’s	  Urban	  Design	  Elements.	  	  Resources/	  Prep:	  GSG	  Pod	  Package-­‐A:	  Markers/Pencil	  Crayons,	  a	  deck	  of	  design	  cards,	  Mini-­‐Street	  Design	  Booklet	  (Street	  Design	  101,	  Overview	  of	  GSG	  Gameplay,	  Individual	  ‘Board’	  or	  Map)	  (6),	  and	  Scenario	  Cards	  A.	  	  	  Facilitators	  Required:	  6	  Lead	  Facilitator	  (1)	  Team	  Facilitators	  (TF):	  1	  per	  pod/group7	  (5)	                                              7 Pods/Groups have may have between 2-6 participants. www.greenstreetsgame.com  20 Instructions:	   1. TFs	  take	  an	  active	  role	  in	  facilitating	  the	  rest	  of	  the	  GSG	  process.	  TFs	  need	  to	  ensure	  each	  player	  has	  a	  Mini	  Street	  Design	  Booklet	  in	  front	  of	  him	  or	  her.	  2. Using	  the	  first	  page	  of	  the	  booklet,	  introduce	  the	  three	  street	  typologies	  and	  provide	  an	  overview	  of	  the	  different	  street	  types	  by	  asking	  for	  local	  examples	  of	  each.	  Optional	  Prompts:	  i. Ask	  players	  which	  road	  is	  moving	  the	  most	  people.	  Players	  will	  most	  likely	  choose	  the	  auto-­‐centric	  road.	  Ask	  them	  to	  count	  to	  the	  people	  on	  the	  road.	  ii. Ask	  players	  which	  road	  they	  would	  feel	  most	  comfortable	  cycling	  on.	  	   3. TFs	  are	  to	  ask	  students	  to	  draw	  how	  they	  could	  make	  their	  own	  street	  more	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’.	  Use	  the	  ‘Mini	  Street’	  located	  at	  the	  end	  of	  the	  booklet.	  Instead	  of	  providing	  all	  the	  instructions	  before	  starting,	  get	  players	  started	  drawing	  and	  progress	  into	  instructional	  prompts.	  Mini	  Street	  Design	  Prompts:8	  i. Brainstorm:	  Refer	  players	  to	  the	  brainstorm	  of	  design	  principles	  for	  ideas	  and	  directions	  ii. Grid	  Pattern:	  Ask	  players	  why	  the	  street	  has	  a	  grid	  pattern.	  Encourage	  participants	  to	  consider	  the	  reality	  of	  limited	  space	  and	  trade-­‐offs.	  iii. Design	  Cards:	  Place	  half	  a	  deck	  of	  Design	  Cards	  in	  the	  center	  of	  the	  table	  and	  distribute	  2	  cards	  to	  every	  player.	  	  The	  Design	  Cards	  are	  examples	  of	  Urban	  Design	  Elements	  players	  may	  consider	  including	  in	  their	  street	  design.	  iv. Scenario	  Cards:	  If	  time	  allows,	  recite	  one	  of	  the	  Scenario	  Cards.	  Players	  will	  most	  likely	  not	  have	  enough	  time	  address	  it,	  but	  it	  will	  better	  prepare	  for	  live	  gameplay.	  4. Warn	  players	  when	  there	  is	  one	  minute	  of	  design	  time	  left	  and	  that	  they	  will	  be	  asked	  to	  share	  one	  element	  from	  their	  map.	  	   {Transition}	  	                                              8 Design Prompts: TF are to pace their prompts, giving players a chance to take on one idea at a time. www.greenstreetsgame.com  21 Share	  Back	  	  Time	  Allocated:	  	  10	  minutes9	  Foundational	  Objective:	  	  	  Facilitate	  a	  ‘share	  back’	  of	  design	  solutions	  generated	  in	  ‘Mini	  Street	  Design’	  (max	  45-­‐60s	  each).	  This	  activity	  builds	  upon	  the	  last	  by	  habituating	  players	  with	  the	  GSG’s	  design	  tools	  for	  peer-­‐to-­‐peer	  communication	  (i.e.	  small	  design	  maps	  &	  design	  cards).	  	  	  Learning	  Outcomes:	  Prepare	  teams	  for	  effective	  communication	  during	  the	  live	  gameplay.	  	  Description:	  In	  teams	  players	  take	  turns	  sharing	  a	  select	  amount	  of	  their	  design	  ideas.	  	  Resources/	  Prep:	  None	  Facilitators	  Required:	  	  6	  Lead	  Facilitator	  (1)	  Team	  Facilitators	  (TFs):	  1	  per	  pod/group10	  (5)	  Instructions:	  1. Ask	  participants	  to	  share	  one	  idea	  from	  their	  mini-­‐street	  design.	  a. The	  share	  back	  needs	  to	  be	  tightly	  facilitated.	  If	  players	  share	  more	  than	  one	  idea	  or	  element	  other	  players	  will	  not	  get	  a	  chance	  to	  share.	  	  b. If	  time	  is	  limited,	  pair	  players	  with	  the	  person	  they	  are	  sitting	  beside	  and	  ask	  them	  to	  share	  between	  themselves.	  2. Prompt	  or	  refer	  players	  to	  the	  game’s	  goal-­‐	  to	  make	  streets	  more	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’	  (i.e.	  ask	  “how	  did	  you	  design	  your	  street	  to	  be	  more	  fun?”).	  3. Encourage	  participants	  to	  use	  the	  ‘tools’	  they	  have	  at	  their	  disposal	  to	  share	  their	  ideas.	  4. {Transition}	  	                                              9 This activity must be tightly facilitated. There is limited time and it is important that all participants share at least one item. 10 Pods/Groups have may have between 2-6 participants. www.greenstreetsgame.com  22 Green	  Street	  Team	  Transformation!	  Time	  Allocated:	  25	  minutes	  Foundational	  Objective	  In	  teams	  players	  are	  to	  transform	  the	  street	  in	  response	  to	  the	  scenario	  cards.	  Support	  your	  team	  as	  needed,	  but	  give	  enough	  space	  for	  autonomous	  play.	  Remind	  your	  team	  that	  to	  win	  they	  must	  attract	  the	  most	  votes	  and	  that	  collaboration	  is	  the	  best	  strategy.	  	  Learning	  Outcomes:	  • Communication	  Skills	  (verbal,	  visual)	  	  • Collaborative	  Decision-­‐Making	  • Teamwork	  • Transportation	  design	  challenges	  	  Description:	  In	  this	  activity	  TFs	  will	  task	  their	  team	  with	  re-­‐imagining	  a	  larger	  map	  section	  or	  ‘board’	  which	  comprises	  of	  six	  streetscape	  categories.11	  The	  Group	  Street	  Design	  is	  the	  heart	  of	  the	  GSG	  process,	  for	  this	  activity	  is	  where	  youth	  feedback/preferences	  are	  collected	  for	  the	  sponsor	  (CoV).	  Players	  are	  asked	  to	  include	  elements	  from	  the	  brainstorm	  and	  their	  individual	  maps	  in	  order	  to	  bring	  a	  variety	  of	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’	  improvements	  to	  their	  neighbourhood.	  	  Resources/	  Prep:	  Collaborative	  Street	  Design	  Map,	  Post-­‐It	  notes,	  Scenario	  Cards,	  Markers,	  and	  Design	  Cards12	  Facilitator	  Required:	  6	  Lead	  Facilitator	  (1)	                                              11 1. Main street 2. Bike route 3. Right neighbourhood street (park and schoolyard adjacency) 4. Left neighbourhood street (residential and school adjacency) 5. Park 6. School and schoolyard. 12 Except for the Collaborative Street Design Map, the previous street design activity will provide TFs with the remaining of the prep materials. Stakeholder	  Feedback	   The	  Group	  Street	  Design	  is	  the	  heart	  of	  the	  GSG	  process,	  for	  this	  activity	  is	  where	  youth	  feedback/preferences	  are	  collected	  for	  the	  sponsor	  (CoV)  Tips	  for	  Players!	   Win	  the	  game	  by	  collaborating	  &	  first	  winning	  over	  your	  teammates.	  ‘If	  a	  player	  cannot	  convince	  a	  fellow	  teammate	  of	  the	  merit	  of	  their	  idea/designs,	  it	  is	  doubtful	  they	  will	  be	  able	  convince	  others	  to	  favourably	  cast	  their	  votes.’	   www.greenstreetsgame.com  23 Team	  Facilitators	  (TFs):	  1	  per	  pod/group13	  (5)	  Instructions:	  The	  team	  facilitators	  guides	  this	  activity	  	   1. Remind	  participants	  how	  to	  win.	  The	  game	  is	  won	  by	  receiving	  the	  most	  votes.	  The	  best	  strategy	  is	  to	  satisfy	  the	  design	  principles	  set	  out	  in	  the	  brainstorm.	  “If	  you	  can’t	  get	  the	  person	  beside	  you	  to	  go	  along	  with	  the	  your	  design,	  how	  are	  you	  going	  to	  get	  others	  to	  vote	  for	  the	  design?”	  a. Read	  Scenario	  Card	  A	  and	  ask	  students	  to	  communicate	  their	  ideas.	  b. Tip:	  Ask	  participants	  to	  start	  designing	  by	  collaborating	  with	  their	  neighbour.	  Start	  small	  instead	  of	  stalling;	  players	  will	  eventually	  collaborate	  in	  a	  table-­‐wide	  collaboration.	  c. Remind	  players	  of	  their	  great	  ideas	  from	  the	  previous	  activities	  2. Prompts:	  a. Remind	  participants	  how	  to	  win	  the	  game.	  b. Brainstorm:	  Refer	  players	  to	  the	  brainstorm	  of	  design	  principles	  for	  ideas	  and	  direction.	  c. Design	  Cards:	  If	  the	  half-­‐deck	  of	  Design	  Cards	  have	  yet	  to	  be	  used,	  distribute	  them	  to	  the	  players.	  d. Scenario	  Cards:	  As	  time	  allows	  recite	  an	  additional	  Scenario	  Card	  every	  ten	  minutes.	  Players	  will	  be	  challenged	  to	  renegotiate	  their	  design	  and	  it	  will	  prompt	  new	  and	  unique	  youth-­‐generated	  solutions.	  3. Five	  minutes	  remaining:	  Tell	  the	  team	  they	  will	  need	  to	  nominate	  one	  or	  two	  people	  to	  present	  back	  their	  ‘board’	  to	  the	  class.	  	  	  {Transition}	  	                                              13 Pods/Groups have may have between 2-6 participants. www.greenstreetsgame.com  24 Team	  Presentations	  &	  Vote!	  	  Time	  Allocated:	  15	  minutes	  	  Foundational	  Objective:	  	  	  Experience	  actively	  participating	  in	  civil	  society	  (i.e.	  advocating	  for	  the	  public	  and	  casting	  your	  support-­‐vote)	  	  Learning	  Outcomes	  • Public	  Speaking	  • Group	  decision-­‐making	  • Advocacy	  • Peer-­‐evaluation	  	  Description:	  Teams	  will	  present	  a	  one-­‐minute	  summary	  of	  their	  Collaborative	  Street	  Design	  Map.	  Preceding	  the	  presentation	  a	  vote	  will	  determine	  the	  winner.	  	  	  Resources/	  Prep:	  None	  Facilitator	  Required:	  6	  Lead	  Facilitator	  (1)	  Team	  Facilitators	  (TFs):	  1	  per	  pod/group14	  (5)	  	  Instructions:	  Both	  the	  team	  and	  lead	  facilitators	  are	  active.	  	   1. The	  lead	  facilitator	  is	  to	  ask	  the	  teams	  to	  do	  a	  one-­‐minute	  summary	  of	  their	  collaborative	  street	  design	  (team	  facilitators	  are	  to	  support	  their	  team).	  Participants	  have	  been	  asked	  to	  prepare	  a	  brief	  summary	  during	  the	  design	  phase.	  i. If	  necessary	  team	  facilitators	  are	  to	  help	  their	  team	  summarize	  their	  work.	  ii. Remind	  the	  team	  to	  speak	  to	  the	  brainstorms	  design	  principles.	  	  2. Vote-­‐	  After	  the	  presentations	  ask	  students	  to	  vote	  with	  their	  hands	  and	  select	  a	  winner.	                                              14 Pods/Groups have may have between 2-6 participants. www.greenstreetsgame.com  25 3. Cheer!!!!!!!!	  	  4. Team	  facilitators	  are	  then	  to	  collect	  all	  Group	  Street	  Design	  Maps,	  secure	  their	  order	  by	  taping	  them	  off,	  and	  labelling	  them	  (date/number	  of	  players/location/time/demographic).	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  26 Summary	  Time	  Allocated:	  3	  minutes	  Foundational	  Objective:	  	  	  Acknowledge	  participants	  valuable	  contributions	  by	  verbalizing	  the	  challenge	  they	  have	  overcome,	  summarizing	  their	  ideas,	  &	  explaining	  how	  efforts	  are	  to	  be	  used	  in	  the	  civic	  process.	  	  Learning	  Outcomes	  Reflect	  on	  the	  processes	  of:	  a. Collaboration	  b. Decision-­‐making	  c. Local	  knowledge	  	  Description:	  The	  lead	  facilitator	  is	  to	  give	  a	  short	  summary.	  The	  goal	  is	  to	  validate	  the	  players’	  efforts	  and	  encourage	  them	  to	  continue	  to	  participate.	  	  Resources/	  Prep:	  None	  Facilitator	  Required:	  1	  Lead	  Facilitator	  (1)	  	  Instructions:	  	  	   1. The	  lead	  facilitator	  is	  to	  congratulate	  the	  players	  and	  summarize	  the	  process.	  a. Players	  not	  only	  collaborated	  and	  redesigned	  their	  streets,	  they	  did	  it	  according	  to	  their	  needs	  (the	  brainstorm).	  b. The	  players	  themselves	  decided	  on	  the	  winner.	  c. The	  players	  made	  all	  the	  decisions	  (terms,	  designs	  and	  winners).	  2. Remind	  players	  how	  their	  efforts	  are	  valued	  and	  part	  of	  the	  greater	  process	  neighbourhood	  process.	  3. Lead	  facilitator	  thanks	  players	  for	  their	  time.	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  27 	  START	  Elementary	  Version!	  Foundational	  Objective:	  • Players	  are	  to	  collaboratively	  redesign	  neighborhood	  streets	  to	  accommodate	  their	  active	  transportation	  needs.	  	  	  Note:	    The Elementary	  School	  is	  45	  minutes.15	  The	  workshops	  vary	  in	  length	  because	  the	  gameplay	  for	  older	  youth	  includes	  greater	  autonomy,	  and	  complicity	  and	  depth	  of	  play	  (i.e.	  more	  scenarios).	  An	  Elementary	  version	  of	  the	  “Intro	  &	  Brainstorm”	  has	  been	  created.	  As	  for	  the	  rest	  of	  the	  instructions,	  adjust	  for	  time	  and	  follow	  the	  high	  school	  version.	   	                                              15 The duration of the game is based on the playersʼ autonomy, depth and competency, as well as available class time. The high school version requires more time because players are given more autonomy. Older youths are also asked to address more scenarios and their cumulative challenges. The Vancouver School Board periods are also longer for older youth, with 75min periods for secondary students and 45-60min periods for elementary students.  www.greenstreetsgame.com  28 Introduction/Brainstorm:	  Time:	  	  8	  minutes	  Foundational	  Objectives:	  Facilitate	  a	  class-­‐wide	  brainstorm.	  Prompt	  participation	  by	  asking	  players	  to	  share	  their	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’	  active	  transportation	  ideas.	  Encourage	  players	  to	  drawn	  upon	  their	  experiential	  knowledge	  (i.e.	  local	  knowledge).	  	  Learning	  Outcomes:	  • Collective	  awareness	  of	  neighbourhood	  assets	  (Local	  knowledge)	  • Livability	  • Ability	  to	  influence	  decision-­‐makers	  • Civic	  goals	  • Active	  transportation	  • Experiential	  knowledge	  • Public	  speaking	  	  Description:	  A	  class-­‐wide	  introduction	  to	  the	  topic	  through	  a	  brainstorm.16	  The	  player-­‐generated	  brainstorm	  is	  the	  criteria	  to	  win	  the	  GSG.	  As	  a	  result	  the	  brainstorm	  frames	  player	  decision-­‐making	  in	  the	  subsequent	  Mini	  Street	  Design	  and	  Group	  Street	  Design.	  	  	  The	  lead	  facilitator	  is	  to	  use	  engaging	  rounds	  of	  closed	  and	  open	  questions17	  to	  facilitate	  dialogue.	  Dialogue	  in	  the	  brainstorm	  is	  to	  be	  iterative	  and	  collaborative	  as	  players’	  contributions	  will	  builds	  off	  of	  each	  other’s	  input.	  	                                               17 The difference between open and closed questions in the length of the response.  e.g. Closed Question : Did you cycle to school today? A: Yes/No.   ‘Fun,	  Safe	  &	  Easy’	   The	  City	  of	  Vancouver	  wants	  feedback	  on	  local	  youths’	  concerns	  regarding	  inclines/slope,	  traffic,	  ‘greening,’	  programming	  and	  route	  selection.	  These	  terms	  are	  jargon,	  and	  both	  youth	  and	  adults	  have	  trouble	  engaging	  with	  them.	  To	  address	  this	  issue	  and	  encourage	  engagement,	  the	  GSG	  introduces	  the	  simple	  rubric	  of	  Fun,	  Safe	  &	  Easy.	  	  	  Using	  more	  accessible	  terminology	  allows	  participants	  to	  better	  understand	  and	  contribute	  based	  on	  their	  local	  knowledge	  and	  preferences.	  	  	   Fun	  is	  the	  idea	  that	  place	  or	  design	  could	  spark	  enjoyment.	  Safe	  allows	  for	  a	  more	  personal	  reflection	  of	  local	  concerns.	  Easy	  is	  about	  making	  things	  accessible	  to	  those	  involved.	   www.greenstreetsgame.com  29 	  Resources/	  Prep:	  Chalk,	  board	  and	  surveys	  (one	  per	  participant).	  Place	  one	  survey	  at	  each	  desk	  and	  as	  participants	  arrive	  ask	  the	  participants	  to	  fill	  out	  the	  survey.	  The	  survey	  will	  help	  settle	  the	  class,	  and	  get	  people	  thinking	  about	  the	  topic.	  	  Facilitators	  Required:	  2	  Lead	  Facilitator	  (1)	  Scribe	  (1)	  	   Instructions:	  1. Introduce	  yourself	  to	  the	  group	  and	  tell	  them	  that	  you	  here	  to	  seek	  input	  for	  the	  PGCATC	  on	  the	  behalf	  of	  the	  CoV.	  	  2. Tell	  them	  their	  feedback	  can	  influence	  the	  design	  of	  their	  neighbourhood	  by	  influencing	  decision-­‐makers	  at	  the	  COV.	  	  3. Play-­‐	  Communicate	  that	  the	  way	  we	  are	  going	  to	  do	  this	  is	  by	  playing	  a	  board	  game	  and	  that	  there	  is	  going	  to	  be	  a	  winner!	  4. Map	  the	  community	  assets	  and	  opportunities	  using	  local	  knowledge:18	  a. The	  scribe	  is	  to	  write	  ‘Community’	  on	  the	  board	  i. Ask	  “what	  fun	  activities	  do	  you	  do	  in	  your	  neighbourhood?”	  ii. Ask	  “what	  stops	  you	  from	  doing	  these	  activities?”	  	  b. Based	  on	  the	  answers	  from	  previous	  question	  you	  will	  move	  on	  the	  level	  of	  inquiry	  by	  asking	  “What	  are	  some	  FUN	  ways	  we	  overcome	  these	  barriers?	  How	  about	  SAFE,	  and	  EASY?”	  5. Inform	  the	  players	  the	  brainstorm	  has	  created	  a	  set	  of	  guiding	  principles	  for	  the	  winning	  board,	  as	  it	  reflects	  their	  understanding	  of	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy.’19	  	                                                     Open Question:  What do you enjoy about your cycle this morning? Fresh air, the sun, etc. Closed questions are ideal to open a subject, they are less daunting to answer and an entire classroom can participate (i.e. hands up). Closed Questions are great way to warm-up or encourage participants to go deeper with Open Questions. Open Questions, are the opposite Close Questions, they provide more information and allow the group to go deeper or explore an issue.  18 Encourage group participation and confidence by highlighting the participantsʼ local knowledge and its value. 19 When working with elementary schools we simplified the brainstorm by asking the following questions “what fun activities do you do in your neighbourhood?” and then moved on to ask “what stops you from doing these activities?”. www.greenstreetsgame.com  30 6. Remind	  players	  that	  they	  are	  to	  win	  by	  getting	  the	  most	  votes	  (i.e.	  appealing	  to	  the	  group’s	  values).	  Players	  therefore	  need	  to	  play	  cooperatively	  and	  collaborate	  on	  the	  design-­‐	  “if	  you	  can’t	  get	  the	  person	  beside	  you	  to	  go	  along	  with	  the	  your	  design,	  how	  are	  you	  going	  to	  get	  others	  to	  vote	  for	  the	  design?”	  	   Example	  Script:	  	  	  Both	  facilitators	  will	  stand	  near	  the	  chalkboard]	  	   • "Today	  we	  are	  going	  to	  play	  a	  game!	  My	  name	  is	  _______	  and	  today	  the	  game	  is	  redesigning	  our	  neighbourhood	  streets!”	  	  • [Lead:	  The	  intention	  is	  to	  have	  the	  participants	  create	  their	  own	  rubric	  or	  guiding	  principles	  to	  guide	  and	  evaluate	  the	  design	  based	  on	  the	  prompts	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’]	  • “What	  fun	  activities	  do	  you	  do	  in	  your	  neighbourhood?”	  • “What	  stops	  you	  from	  doing	  these	  activities?”	  • “What	  are	  some	  FUN	  ways	  we	  overcome	  these	  barriers?	  How	  about	  SAFE,	  and	  EASY?”	  • “Would	  you	  like	  to	  live	  in	  neighbourhood	  that	  is	  ____________	  (summarize	  the	  brainstorm)?”	  	  • “Great!	  Because	  in	  your	  team	  you	  are	  about	  to	  redesign	  your	  neighbourhood	  streets	  and	  the	  way	  to	  WIN	  is	  on	  that	  board.”	  	  	  [Transition]	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  31 	  	   Data	  Collection	  	  Data	  was	  collected	  from	  the	  56	  collaborative	  street	  design	  maps	  created	  by	  371	  participants	  over	  15	  workshops.	  The	  design	  elements	  present	  on	  each	  map	  were	  analyzed	  for	  their	  level	  of	  incidence	  (the	  number	  of	  times	  they	  appeared)	  and	  proximity	  to	  a)	  other	  design	  elements	  and	  b)	  the	  six	  streetscapes	  and	  four	  intersections.	  	  To	  control	  for	  the	  variability	  of	  design	  and	  style	  found	  in	  each	  unique	  map,	  the	  GSG	  Team	  chose	  to	  analyze	  the	  general	  incidence	  of	  urban	  design	  elements	  rather	  than	  their	  intensity.	  Under	  an	  intensity-­‐based	  analysis	  a	  street	  with	  one	  covered	  area,	  18	  streetlights	  and	  one	  drinking	  fountain	  would	  indicate	  a	  stronger	  priority	  for	  streetlights	  when	  this	  may	  not	  be	  the	  desired	  intention.	  An	  incidence-­‐based	  analysis	  would	  indicate	  a	  preference	  for	  both	  streetlights	  and	  covered	  areas,	  allowing	  the	  comprehension	  of	  an	  overall	  relationship	  of	  preferences	  across	  data	  sets.	  	  The	  GSG	  game	  data	  sets	  were	  generated	  based	  on	  the	  Comox-­‐Helmcken	  Greenway	  Child	  and	  Youth	  Assessment	  Tool.	  A	  variety	  of	  amendments	  were	  made	  to	  accommodate	  the	  GSG	  workshop	  methodology.	  Additional	  indicators	  were	  derived	  from	  the	  Urban	  Design	  Element	  cards,	  as	  well	  as	  Specific	  Street	  improvements	  provided	  by	  the	  children	  and	  youth	  who	  participated	  in	  the	  workshops,	  to	  create	  a	  total	  of	  74	  individual	  indicators	  grouped	  into	  11	  categories.	  The	  data	  sets	  generated	  from	  this	  analysis	  have	  been	  inferred	  as	  indicators	  for	  preferred	  mobility	  and	  streetscape	  options	  within	  the	  Point	  Grey	  Cornwall	  project	  study	  area.	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  32 Analytical	  Framework	  	  All	  design	  elements	  were	  manually	  counted	  according	  to	  their	  age	  group	  and	  school,	  and	  then	  inputted	  into	  six	  streetscape	  categories:	  	   1	   Main	  street	  	  	   2	   Bike	  lane	  	  	   3	   Right	  neighbourhood	  street	  (park	  and	  schoolyard	  adjacency)	  	  	   4	   Left	  neighbourhood	  street	  (residential	  and	  school	  adjacency)	  	  	   5	  	   Park	  	  	   6	   School	  and	  schoolyard	  	  Upon	  initial	  data	  collection,	  individual	  indicators	  were	  counted	  and	  then	  grouped	  into	  five	  discrete	  data	  sets:	  	  1	   Overall	  incidence	  	  2	   Incidence	  according	  to	  streetscape	  category	  	  3	   Incidence	  corresponding	  to	  categories	  of	  fun	  4	   Incidence	  corresponding	  to	  categories	  of	  safe	  	  5	   Incidence	  corresponding	  to	  categories	  of	  easy	  	  The	  GSG	  Team	  categorized	  design	  elements	  into	  a	  rubric	  of	  ‘Fun,	  Safe,	  &	  Easy’	  according	  to	  their	  intended	  primary	  use.	  The	  team	  defined	  these	  terms	  as	  follows:	  	   Fun:	  Design	  features	  that	  encourage	  frequent	  use	  by	  providing	  enjoyment.	   Safe:	  Design	  features	  that	  protect	  users	  from	  real	  or	  perceived	  harm	  by	  mitigating	  dangerous	  factors	  and	  enhancing	  protective	  elements.	   Easy:	  Design	  features	  that	  enable	  convenient	  use	  by	  improving	  accessibility	  and	  proximity.	  	  Several	  elements	  fit	  within	  two	  categories	  and	  were	  counted	  twice	  (for	  example,	  streetlights	  were	  grouped	  into	  both	  Safe	  and	  Easy).	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  33 APPENDIX	  A.	  PGCC	  PROJECT:	  Youth	  Engagement	  Summary	  Report	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  34 	  	  APPENDIX	  B.1	  DESIGN	  CARDS	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  35 www.greenstreetsgame.com  36 APPENDIX	  B.2	  SCENARIO	  CARDS-­‐A	  	  #3:	  Scenario	  Card	  	  	  	  	   	  (Read	  Aloud)	  	   Erica	  and	  Rachel	  are	  grade	  7	  students	  at	  ___________	  School.	  On	  Fridays	  they	  eat	  lunch	  at	  the	  bakery	  across	  the	  street	  from	  the	  school.	  Last	  week	  a	  pedestrian	  was	  hit	  at	  crossing	  beside	  the	  school.	  Re-­‐imagine	  the	  streets	  so	  they	  are	  safer	  for	  Erica	  and	  Rachel	  to	  get	  across	  for	  lunch.	  	  	  At	  the	  end	  of	  the	  activity,	  your	  facilitator	  will	  be	  evaluating	  your	  work	  and	  sharing	  key	  points	  with	  the	  whole	  class.	  Extra	  points	  for	  making	  the	  street	  more	  fun!	  	  Focus:	  Pedestrian	  safety,	  friends,	  schooldays	   www.GreenStreetsGame.com	  	  #1a:	  Scenario	  Card	  	  	  	  	   	  (Read	  Aloud)	  	   Sarah/Thomas	  is	  a	  grade	  (elementary)	  ____	  student	  at	  _________	  School.	  Every	  morning	  her	  mom	  drives	  the	  8	  blocks	  to	  school,	  and	  after	  class	  she	  walks	  home	  with	  friends.	  Sarah	  and	  her	  friends	  have	  decided	  that	  they	  want	  to	  ride	  their	  bikes	  to	  school,	  but	  their	  parents	  are	  concerned.	  They	  say	  that	  the	  neighbourhood	  roads	  are	  too	  narrow,	  and	  they	  are	  also	  worried	  about	  crossing	  the	  busy	  street	  next	  to	  their	  school.	  Re-­‐imagine	  the	  streets	  so	  they’re	  safer	  for	  Sarah	  and	  her	  friends	  to	  bike	  to	  school.	  	  	  At	  the	  end	  of	  the	  activity,	  your	  facilitator	  will	  be	  evaluating	  your	  work	  and	  sharing	  key	  points	  with	  the	  whole	  class.	  Extra	  points	  for	  making	  the	  street	  more	  fun!	  	  Focus:	  Bike	  safety,	  friends,	  schooldays	   www.GreenStreetsGame.com	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  37 APPENDIX B.3 MINI-STREET DESIGN BOOKLET  Street	  Design	  101	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  38 Overview	  of	  GSG	  Game-­‐Play	  	  www.greenstreetsgame.com  39 Individual	  ‘Board’	  or	  Map	  (11x17)	     www.greenstreetsgame.com  40 APPENDIX	  B.4	  LARGE	  BOARDS	  (24x36)	   www.greenstreetsgame.com  41 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.310.1-0075848/manifest

Comment

Related Items