Singapore sweat. Week 1.


Rachel Roberts

This marks the end of Week 1. We’ve decided for this month that we’ll each contribute about a paragraph to a weekly ‘wrap up’ blog post.

We’re in Singapore working with Earth Observatory of Singapore to create a prototype for a new game about responding to disasters (specifically, volcanoes and typhoons) and managing evacuation procedures. We’ve been given a very detailed brief (thanks to Finig for coming over to Singapore a year ago to flesh out that proposal) and so have been able to dive right in, making games and systems models.

I’ve taken a slightly different approach to my own involvement for this project – rather than stressing about trying to know everything I possibly can about the system, I’m letting go of that and embracing not knowing. Instead, I’m trying to think and create mechanisms that are clear, engaging, hopefully even elegant. There are experts here who can tweak the science if it’s off a bit.


Nathan Harrison

I’ve spent a lot of this week thinking about how the system revolves around two key decisions – the decision of the government to order an evacuation, and the decision of the individual to evacuate.
Each of these decisions has a lot of complex factors and influences, and together they house many of the concepts we want to try and communicate in this project.
So unlike Best Festival Ever, a system with many points of management, and Democratic Nature, with a wide range of system features, it feels like this game hinges on those two decisions. I’m interested in how we can explore those decisions, through multiple iterations and changing perspectives, to illustrate the larger system. I think it’s a great opportunity to try new types of games.

Nikki Kennedy

Week one is done and it feels like I’ve not got through very much at all. I love reading about disaster management but feel like I have barely scraped the surface.

This week I have been quite interested in how we simulate memory of past events in our audience – or if we even need to. If you live in a volcano or typhoon prone area then you’ve either experienced an event, or an evacuation, some form of training/disaster preparation or even just stories of what happened. But if you’re an audience coming into this show/game then you might not have that experience, or have an experience but of a disaster in a specific location/conditions. Our fictional or based-on-real environment is unlikely to be one you’re familiar with and therefore you need to have some familiarity and connection with it.

I feel like you do need this grounding in past events if only to streamline experience for the participants and make the operation of the system seem more logical. If each audience member has a different idea of how the system works in a disaster situation then it’s much easier for them to find fault in the structure or the system represented – and to miss the points being illustrated. It’s not crucial to the process, but it does limit the ‘noise’ or contest-ability of the limits of the system, and allow for the point and focus of what we’re trying to explain to be easier to understand then it’s probably worth it. It might make our job a bit easier.

There is so much to be of interest right now – we’re trying to work out structure and all the things about disasters and disaster management and reactions we could gamify – as well as how to make this into something easily transportable and for just one facilitator – but reducing noise around the game focus is maybe useful for helping to get across a few specific things.

Also the Art/Science Museum was the best. I want nice, safe, comfortable, fun, adult friendly slides everywhere I go.


David Finnigan

This is the first for the second development of our new project looking at natural hazard crises at the Earth Observatory Singapore. I’ve spent a lot of the week digging back into some previous notes from my last stay here, and surveying journal articles that EOS have shared with us.


I wanted to write briefly about one of those articles, because I think it captures a little of the kind of science being done in this field – which is not just the science of how volcanoes and typhoons occur, but the social science that examines how communities and individuals respond to them.

This is from a paper on the ‘Protective Active Decision Model’ –  Lindell and Perry attempt to model the way in which humans decide what course of action they’ll take in the face of a natural hazard crisis.

The first thing that happens is the left column – people receive information about the disaster. It might be environmental (they smell the smoke, see the clouds), it might be a news source, it might be socially.

The middle cluster of boxes is a representation of that person’s internal decision-making state. The three big questions that each person (subconsciously) asks when they get this news are:

  • What do I understand this threat to mean?
  • What are my options?
  • What do I think/feel about the sources of this information?

The outcome of this thought process is some or all of the following actions:

  • They seek more information about the situation
  • ‘Emotion-focused coping’ (they worry)
  • They take action

When they seek more information, that means going back to the start of the process.

There are two key ideas from this paper that I took:

  1. Everyone has a particular set of criteria that they need met before they’ll take action. Those criteria are different for everyone. Roughly, people need six pieces of confirmatory evidence before they’ll do something as drastic as evacuating. (That number might be lessened if the evacuation order comes in the form of the military pounding on your door.)
  2. This kind of conceptual model is used to capture how people think about disasters so that you can analyse it mathematically, or simulate it in a software model (an agent-based model). It’s useful to know about these kinds of models because they’re how scientists understand and simulate human behaviour in natural disasters.

This is not something that’s likely to be in the show, but I wanted to write about it as an example of the sort of research being done in the field.

Question here: How will we represent people’s behaviour in a disaster situation in our game? Will it be through narrative, or will we use a simple model like the PADM?


The push-pull of needing expert knowledge


We’re a week and a half into the development of Democratic Nature in Stockholm – the second development on this work since our first R&D period back in January. The focus has shifted quite drastically – whereas last time we were taking in as much information as possible and generating a whole array of new games to play with, this time we’ve got the outline of the show, and we’re actually constructing the prototype.

An interesting tension has emerged in this phase of the project: the push/pull of knowledge gathering.

Unlike with BFE, we’re dealing with a very specific real world system, and so accuracy and rigour becomes pretty important. When we were working with a fictional music festival, we could tweak the parameters of the festival to help us illustrate our points. With Flaten, we don’t have that luxury.

So for example, in Democratic Nature, we want to have a series of linked mini-games illustrating cross-scale dynamics in Flaten’s ecological systems. Our plan is to start with a game on a micro scale, then zoom out to see the impact of that small element when you aggregate it numerous times.

At the moment, we have a draft suite of games which begins with an Ekoxe Beetle (a stag beetle which lives on old oak trees), then zooms out to look at the oak trees that are its habitat, then zooms out to see the forest scale and the oak patches which are a habitat for a kind of bird.

The problem is, we’re not sure that the examples we’ve picked necessarily demonstrate the point we’re talking about. What impact do Ekoxe Beetles have on oak trees when you talk about them in large numbers? We assume that there is some impact, but what is it, and is it the most powerful and resonant example we could choose?

So we need to go to our experts – but at the same time, we don’t want to pause the process to wait for answers.

So, what’s the balance between making wrong things you know you’ll have to change, and twiddling your thumbs while you wait for some expert advice?

– David

Why are Boho in Stockholm?


In 2012, 2 artists from Boho Interactive (David Finnigan and David Shaw) and 3 new Boho associates from Applespiel (Rachel Roberts, Nathan Harrison and Nikki Kennedy) were in residence at University College London developing what would later become ‘Best Festival Ever: How To Manage A Disaster’ (BFE).

BFE emerged from an initial prompt by the former Dean of UCL, climate scientist Lord Julian Hunt, to develop a module to help train policy-makers in systems thinking. Over the next few years, we delved into systems science to develop an interactive table-top performance that used game mechanisms to build systems thinking skills.  We used research from the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) in this process, and at the end of a  development period in 2014 were invited over to Stockholm to share BFE with SRC.

Since then, Boho have been performing BFE in Australia and the UK, and collaborating with new partners to create new works that use systems science and gaming. Anna Emmelin, our friend at SRC, invited us to join a partnership and work on the Flaten project – also known as ‘Democratic Nature’.


Flaten lake and bathing area in February – completely frozen.

Flaten is a nature reserve and lake in the suburban area of Skarpnäck, in Stockholm, Sweden. This beautiful lake area is home to a unique project that brings together partners from science, theatre, education and government to look at the sustainability and governance of the area. The Flaten project is a blend of four elements that power a process of engagement, learning and co-creation. These are:

Youth education and engagement (School children are brought to the area through their schools and camp programs for experience-based learning)

A table top game (that’s us!)

A political process (Flaten is being used as a role model for modern sustainable governance of nature reserves)

Data observation (Programmes and processes to capture, understand, share and act upon data. Lessons from Flaten can be applied in a local, national and global context)

In February 2016, Boho was in residence at Flaten with our partners and friends Miljöverkstan, who are responsible for the incredible experience-based learning opportunities for school children and programs for newly arrived immigrants. Over 4 weeks we gathered information about the social, cultural, political and ecological history of Flaten and began to play with game mechanisms that might use this information to teach skills in sustainability and governance.

Now we are back in Sweden for about 5 weeks of development to create a prototype of our game, and continue the networking and learning process with the Flaten project partners (Miljöverkstan, Albaeco, GivingOS, and many individuals who share their time and expertise with the project). We’ll be back in 2017 to turn the prototype into a polished game that can be played in galleries, board rooms, schools – anywhere. We’ll also be continuing to work and share with our new partners, because this project is a really unique opportunity to share skills and knowledge long-term. It could be that we’ll end up with a game-making process that can be applied to systems anywhere in the world, so we can travel around and create systems games anywhere.


It’s pretty cool.

– Rachel

Things I have learnt about researching real life complex systems

IMG_4436This process has not just been about us making a new game. This is the beginning of a new phase of making science into theatre for us. While we have always talked about putting the systems thinking knowledge we have, and the skills we learnt in the making of Best Festival Ever to work on a real life system, this is our first attempt. We are so lucky to have got that chance with Miljöverkstan and the Flaten area. For us this is a learning curve, and while we have a solid base of knowledge in what works and what doesn’t (or hasn’t for us in the past), we are still working on our process of approach to a real life system. A real life system with a huge range of ecosystems, social systems, economic systems and governance systems.

Miljöverkstan have set us an excellent challenge, we’re not only getting to grips with a new system for us, but one that operates within a whole different cultural, social and political history. We need to not only research the Flaten area but learn (at very least) the basics of Swedish history, culture, mythology (or how they mythologise the forest), and governmental procedures and policies. There is another level to the challenge – the final game or product of our work will be presented in Swedish. So much of what we read around us or overhear here we don’t understand or misinterpret in our trying. We’re attempting to learn some Swedish, but it’s slow going and so far I can understand only parents speaking slowly to very small children. These are all exciting challenges; we didn’t set ourselves a simple first attempt at making this kind of work.

So, some things that I will do when approaching a process like this in future. Keep in mind that we’re only 4 weeks in and these are items directly related to the ‘Research’ phase of the process. There will be a whole different set for ‘Development’.  In some way, at this point in the process, I am also offering myself an answer to my first blog post question of our Flaten development;

How can we gain the most comprehensive picture of a system we have no experience of, within a culture with have a limited understanding of? 

This is how:

  1. Get a good map early: One with topography and buildings and housing developments and train stations. Turns out Flaten’s best one so far is from the Orienteering society.
  2. Spend a lot of the first week walking and talking. Get everyone you can interview to take you out walking through their system and explaining it to you. Take photos. Take a note pad. Take recording equipment. Be aware you probably won’t have time to edit much later. Keep in mind that unofficial chats with people will often bring some of the best information – so keep chatting once the formal part of the interview/walk/tour is over. Make sure to keep note of the things that are common to everyone, or come up a lot. Make note of things that seem strange and cross reference or check facts if possible. Also go for walks on your own. Take your own time to discover an area and let it become something to you. Record this experience of getting to know it, and finding what you find special about it. This will help you help another audience find a way to love it also. (It will also help you to find the larger supermarket that is just down the block earlier than 3 days before you fly back to Australia that would have afforded you more variety and cheaper options)
  3. Find out what people in the system value. Not only what they say they value, but also what their actions, and the formation of the system tells you they value. This goes from the minute, to the very large scale. Values placed on food, eating together, customs of offering tea, coffee or cake, customs of respect and politeness, value places in being outdoors,  as well as the way the transport network runs, the headlines in the news and how they are represented in popular culture also feeds into a bigger picture. All of these things tell you what  values users of the system have, and that you need to consider even briefly in your picture of the system.
  4. You need maybe 3 weeks of just getting to know an area. Research – read general histories, but also specific ones. Timelines, pictures from all eras, and how the land in that region was formed. After 3 weeks your questions will become better, clearer and more focused and you’ll be better able to know where you might want to seek more information. If you’re leaving the area around this time you will discover all these pieces of seemingly disparate information begin to gather and become marginally clearer – just as you get ready to leave.
  5. Finding people who can draw links between different systems is important – social and ecological, economic and governmental – these people will help you find the points of cross purpose or miscommunication which are incredibly useful from a theatre makers perspective. How these situations form and the way they are managed are some of the hinges that a show can swing off.
  6. Once you have discovered your area of focus, try to work out where it fits into the wider system. What suburbs are nearby? Who lives there? How do they relate to your system? What kind of environment is it? Has it always been considered as separate to your system or was it once connected? What is the governance of it? What developments there could effect your system, or vice versa?
  7. Record everything – but in ways you’re actually going to be able to engage with. It’s great to have 2 hours of interview recording but if you don’t have the time to type it up, or re listen to it then it’s not something you should waste resources on.
  8. Don’t just experience your system in isolation. Seems a bit like point 6 but this is in relation to wider history and culture of a country. These large shifts or behaviours/ways of thinking will effect your system and will be part of your audiences comprehension also. You don’t need to put these in a show (and probably shouldn’t probably do that – they’re discoveries for you, not for your audience – but they will colour the way others approach and view the system.
  9. Keep up to date. As much as possible use contacts to gather recent developments in systems science and resilience. While these may not be directly relevant to your environmental system they are relevant to the development and particularly they keep your work up to date and fresh. They also provide some nice jumping off points and help to clarify, or refocus your perception of the way the system works or could work in the future. These developments already colour your process, better to be aware and know what they are in advance.
  10. Record first impressions. At the very beginning write down what your first impression of the system is. What kind of environment it is, what the issues it faces will be, what people want from it/contribute to it and what kind of game you think might reflect it’s systems. I wish we had done this with Flaten. In some ways the final product might reflect these initial ideas quite closely, but I think they would also reflect just how much we assume a system operates like one we know and recognise, without fully comprehending it’s individual situation. I think these reflections will tell us more about our own assumptions.

There are probably more of these I will think of in the coming weeks as we get the advantage of time away from the project and the hindsight that comes with that. IMG_4399

Right now I am happy to be home and back in the system I am most familiar with for a while. I’ll just leave this photo of the others posing in Abisko here. Bye for now.



Transformation Theory & Flaten


Writing this from back home in Australia, at the end of an exciting and hectic month. First dive into the project, it’s been a steep learning curve and a lot of incredible sights and sounds.

One of the things I’m taking away with me is an idea which lurked somewhat in the background of Best Festival Ever, and which is coming into sharper focus with these new collaborations with Forum for the Future and Miljoverkstan; the idea of Transformation Theory, and what that means in a systems sense.

Sometimes, we want a system to be resilient. Other times, we desperately want to change something, and the resilience of the system counters any effort we make to push it into a different state.

Forum’s work is centered around the idea of pursuing targeted transformation – the idea that we can introduce certain kinds of pressures and disturbances into systems that can shift them into new regimes that we would prefer. Miljoverkstan have a more exploratory focus on the Flaten system, but if the system’s trajectory points towards environmental destruction and the loss of what makes the area unique, they would certainly seek to intervene.

People managing complex systems have three choices when they are impacted by a disturbance: cope, adapt or transform. Coping means soaking up the damage and continuing on as before. Adapting means reorganising the system in order to absorb the effect of the disturbance, while retaining the core function of the system. Transforming means fundamentally altering the composition and behaviour of the system.

I get the impression, from the contexts in which we’ve heard it, that ‘transformation’ is a buzzword in the way that ‘resilience’ has become in the last few years. (This is always interesting to me, because as a theatre-artist, I have no concept of recent buzzwords in the science / business / management worlds.) But in the way that resilience is not necessarily a positive quality for a system to have, transformation is not necessarily a positive solution in many instances.

One of the biggest qualifiers that Anna mentioned when talking about transformation practices was cost: cost in resources and cost in time. You might want to fundamentally transform a system in order to respond to disturbances (or the threat of disturbances), rather than merely coping or adapting. But if you don’t have the money or time to really carry that transformation through, you might simply be leaving the system in a more fragile and damaged state than it was already.

I’m not yet sure what the link between transformation theory and this new work is, but I have the strong sense that the number of times it’s been raised and discussed is indicative of something.

So my question is: What would it mean to transform Flaten? What might we transform it into, and how?

– David


Resilience Pivots

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAWe had a great few days this week, running shows of Best Festival Ever for friends, funders and stakeholders of Miljöverkstan and Democratic Nature. Doing the show at this point in the process was really useful for me, reminding me of some of our goals, how the decisions we make at this point are reflected in a final product, and the joy that comes with sharing these sorts of games and ideas with an audience.

After the Friday show we got to have a long conversation with some people who are not only familiar with the Flaten area, but who work with systems science and environmental data. This is a very useful relationship for us, and one that will only increase in value as we get further into the process.

In the conversation we touched upon a concept that was new to me, that of resilience pivots. When a system is undergoing transformation, there are some parts of the system that don’t transform. The resilience of these parts is what in effect allows the transformation. In considering the transformation of a system, it is valuable to consider which parts stayed resilient as much as it is to consider which parts transformed.

I believe this is an idea better suited to studying past transformations than predicting future ones – though it might help to understand the impact of a suggested transformation. Identifying where in the system resilience will help transformation and where it will hinder could help create opportunities to effect change.

If someone wanted to turn the Flaten area into a big commercial tourist zone, one resilience pivot point might be the clean water and beauty of the lake – these qualities would have to not change for the transformation to work.

I look forward to understanding this better and figuring out nicer examples.


It’s clearly a concept that I’m still getting my head around, but I’m very excited that a few years into this process we’re able to talk to experts and learn more nuanced ideas about systems. It shows how far we’ve come since 2012, and even thought it might not be an idea we end up explicitly communicating in a show about Flaten, it’s a new way to look at the system and a new concept to add to our language of our process.

Here’s a paper that I’ve skimmed through and seems useful, Resilience Pivots: Stability and Identity in a Social-Ecological-Cultural System.

Can the concept of resilience pivots help us to understand past transformations of Flaten, and better articulate potential future ones?

– Nathan

Oak No You Didn’t

bart sad

Some of my favourite episodes of the Simpsons are where Bart (it’s usually Bart) recognises that something he’s done has had a profound (usually hurtful) effect on someone. I think realising that your actions can affect others is an important part of growing up as a child, and the Simpsons has a knack for showing these moments in a very earnest way. Bart seeing Mrs Krabappel sitting alone in a restaurant after faking love letters and a dinner invitation comes to mind. Also Bart watching Lisa walk off home from the carnival and realising that he’d gone too far. It’s that moment as a child when you learn to zoom out, perhaps only slightly, and see yourself in a bigger picture.

We’ve spent a lot of time the last week or so discussing an overarching principle for this show about Flaten – some sort of framing that clarifies what the show is trying to do. Something that helps an audience know what they’re going to experience, and to say quite simply, we believe x is important. We’ve been lucky enough this week to share in the knowledge and expertise of some very clever and wonderful people, and these experiences have helped me in grounding some of our ideas.

On Wednesday we had a walk around (and across!!!) the lake with Sarah, who works at the Stockholm Resilience Centre and has run guided tours of Flaten for the last twelve years. She wrote her phd on it!


Sarah told us about how as the land mass of Sweden was formed, plants and animals quickly spread to it – and with them, people. So one can argue that Stockholm (and by extension, Flaten), has pretty much always had people on it. This land has more or less always been managed. Since the beginning it has existed as a socio-ecological system.

This feels kind of weird, at least coming from an Australian perspective – the Australian land mass existed for a long time without people, even though people have been in Australia for tens of thousands of years.

It also connects to the idea that oak forests, which have been around for hundreds of years, come from active land management, and need some level of active land management to survive. Again this feels kind of counterintuitive to me. I think there’s an idea you pick up as a child that if left alone nature will heal and revitalise, but in reality it’s a bit more complicated than that.

So with these and many more ideas bouncing around my head I’ve been trying to clarify at least one aspect of the why for this show.

We have a relationship to the environment we’re in. We influence it and it influences us, in ways both subtle and overt, simple and complex. The area of Flaten has always had a relationship with people, and over time that relationship has changed the system again and again. We have a responsibility, and an opportunity, to make that relationship the best it can be. We can do that by learning about the Flaten system, understanding its complexity, its uniqueness and recognising our own place within it. The more we can do that, the better choices we can make for the system and the better contributions we can make to a future that we want.

Flaten is a pretty unique area, and has a unique relationship with the people that are part of it. How do we ground the show in the uniqueness of the system while speaking to something larger?

– Nathan