Anderson, C. B. et al. Chapter 2. Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and their contributions to people. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6493134 (2022).

O’Brien, K. et al. IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Summary for Policymakers. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382230 (2024).

Muradian, R. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind?. Ecol. Econ. 185, 107038 (2021).


Google Scholar
 

Washington, H., Piccolo, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Kopnina, H. & Alberro, H. The Trouble with Anthropocentric Hubris, with Examples from Conservation. Conservation 1, 285–298 (2021).


Google Scholar
 

Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017).


Google Scholar
 

Ives, C. D. et al. Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustain Sci. 13, 1389–1397 (2018).


Google Scholar
 

Harms, P., Hofer, M. & Artmann, M. Planning cities with nature for sustainability transformations — a systematic review. Urban Transform 6, 9 (2024).


Google Scholar
 

Duvall, P., Lennon, M. & Scott, M. The ‘natures’ of planning: evolving conceptualizations of nature as expressed in urban planning theory and practice. Eur. Plan. Stud. 26, 480–501 (2018).


Google Scholar
 

Bush, J. & Doyon, A. Building urban resilience with nature-based solutions: How can urban planning contribute?. Cities 95, 102483 (2019).


Google Scholar
 

Maller, C. Re-orienting nature-based solutions with more-than-human thinking. Cities 113, 103155 (2021).


Google Scholar
 

Pineda-Pinto, M. et al. Planning Ecologically Just Cities: A Framework to Assess Ecological Injustice Hotspots for Targeted Urban Design and Planning of Nature-Based Solutions. Urban Policy Res. 40, 206–222 (2022a).


Google Scholar
 

Schlosberg, D. Environmental and Ecological Justice: Theory and Practice in the United States. in The State and the Global Ecological Crisis (eds. Barry, J. & Eckersley, R.) 97–116 (The MIT Press, 2005).

Thaler, M. What If: multispecies justice as the expression of utopian desire. Environ. Politics 31, 258–276 (2022).


Google Scholar
 

Joshi, N. & Kothari, A. Autonomy and pluriversal energy futures in Ladakh, India. Human Geography 19427786241303762 https://doi.org/10.1177/19427786241303762 (2024).

McPhearson, T. et al. Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustain 1, 1–13 (2021).


Google Scholar
 

Houston, D., Hillier, J., MacCallum, D., Steele, W. & Byrne, J. Make kin, not cities! Multispecies entanglements and ‘becoming-world’ in planning theory. Plan. Theory 17, 190–212 (2018).


Google Scholar
 

Jon, I. Deciphering posthumanism: Why and how it matters to urban planning in the Anthropocene. Plan. Theory 19, 392–420 (2020).


Google Scholar
 

Metzger, J. A more-than-human approach to environmental planning. in The Routledge companion to environmental planning (eds. Davoudi, S., Cowell, R., White, I. & Blanco, H.) 190–199 (Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY, 2020). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315179780-20.

Celermajer, D. et al. Multispecies justice: theories, challenges, and a research agenda for environmental politics. Environ. Politics 30, 119–140 (2021).


Google Scholar
 

Tanasescu, M. Rethinking representation: The challenge of non-humans. Aust. J. Political Sci. 49, 40–53 (2014).


Google Scholar
 

Pickering, J., Bäckstrand, K. & Schlosberg, D. Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22, 1–15 (2020).


Google Scholar
 

Schlosberg, D. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. (2007).

Pineda-Pinto, M., Frantzeskaki, N. & Nygaard, C. A. The potential of nature-based solutions to deliver ecologically just cities: Lessons for research and urban planning from a systematic literature review. Ambio 51, 167–182 (2022b).


Google Scholar
 

Raymond, C. M. et al. Applying multispecies justice in nature-based solutions and urban sustainability planning: Tensions and prospects. npj Urban Sustain 5, 2 (2025).


Google Scholar
 

Ampatzidou, C. et al. All Work and No Play? Facilitating Serious Games and Gamified Applications in Participatory Urban Planning and Governance. Urban Plan. 3, 34–46 (2018).


Google Scholar
 

Sousa, M., Pais Antunes, A., Pinto, N. & Zagalo, N. Serious Games in Spatial Planning: Strengths, Limitations and Support Frameworks. IJSG 9, 115–133 (2022).


Google Scholar
 

Flood, S., Cradock-Henry, N. A., Blackett, P. & Edwards, P. Adaptive and interactive climate futures: systematic review of ‘serious games’ for engagement and decision-making. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063005 (2018).


Google Scholar
 

Chen, J. C. & Martin, A. R. Role-Play Simulations as a Transformative Methodology in Environmental Education. J. Transformative Educ. 13, 85–102 (2015).


Google Scholar
 

Daniau, S. The Transformative Potential of Role-Playing Games—: From Play Skills to Human Skills. Simul. Gaming 47, 423–444 (2016).


Google Scholar
 

Rumore, D., Schenk, T. & Susskind, L. Role-play simulations for climate change adaptation education and engagement. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 745–750 (2016).


Google Scholar
 

Gordon, S. & Thomas, I. The learning sticks’: reflections on a case study of role-playing for sustainability. Environ. Educ. Res. 24, 172–190 (2018).


Google Scholar
 

Rao, D. & Stupans, I. Exploring the potential of role play in higher education: development of a typology and teacher guidelines. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 49, 427–436 (2012).


Google Scholar
 

Macy, J. & Brown, M. Y. Coming Back to Life: The Updated Guide to the Work That Reconnects. (New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2014).

Lambert, L. M. Ecological empathy: relational theory and practice. Ecosyst. People 20, 2396919 (2024).


Google Scholar
 

Sachs Olsen, C. Co-Creation Beyond Humans: The Arts of Multispecies Placemaking. UP 7, (2022).

Castellazzi, E., Hakkarainen, V. & Raymond, C. M. Role-play as a catalyst for justice awareness: a relational approach to nature-based solutions with secondary school students. Ecosyst. People 20, 2430591 (2024).


Google Scholar
 

Istrate, A.-L. & Hamel, P. Urban Nature Games for integrating nature-based solutions in urban planning: A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 239, 104860 (2023).


Google Scholar
 

Bolton, G. M. & Heathcote, D. So You Want to Use Role-Play? A New Approach in How to Plan. (Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent, 1999).

Baggio, J. A., Brown, K. & Hellebrandt, D. Boundary object or bridging concept? A citation network analysis of resilience. E&S 20, (2015).

Artmann, M. Human-nature resonance in times of social-ecological crisis – a relational account for sustainability transformation. Ecosystems and People 19, (2023).

Harms, P. & Ortner, S. Speaking as a river — a guide for implementing multispecies role-playing games. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14856435 (2025).

Knauß, S. Why the life of the other matters – The decolonial ethics of exteriority in Dussel, Qui-jano and Mignolo. in Civilization – Nature – Subjugation (eds. Haar, C., Kaufmann, M. & Müller, C.) 341–354 (Peter Lang D, 2021).

Knauß, S. Dekoloniale Ethik und die Grenzen der Redefreiheit. ZfPP 9, 333–350 (2023).


Google Scholar
 

Mariani, I. Other Worlds. When Worldbuilding and Roleplay Feed Speculation. in Design, User Experience, and Usability. Design for Contemporary Interactive Environments (eds. Marcus, A. & Rosenzweig, E.) vol. 12201 482–495 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020).

Pereira, L. M., Hichert, T., Hamann, M., Preiser, R. & Biggs, R. Using futures methods to create transformative spaces: visions of a good Anthropocene in southern Africa. ES 23, art19 (2018).


Google Scholar
 

Horcea-Milcu, A.-I. et al. Values in transformational sustainability science: four perspectives for change. Sustain Sci. 14, 1425–1437 (2019).


Google Scholar
 

Wamsler, C. et al. Enabling new mindsets and transformative skills for negotiating and activating climate action: Lessons from UNFCCC conferences of the parties. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 227–235 (2020).


Google Scholar
 

Nagler, B. Rollenspiel. in Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung. Quantitative und Qualitative Methoden (eds. Kühl, Stefan., Strodtholz, Petra. & Taffertshofer, Andreas.) 124–144 (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91570-8_7.

Bush, J. & Doyon, A. Planning a just nature-based city: Listening for the voice of an urban river. Environ. Sci. Policy 143, 55–63 (2023).


Google Scholar
 

Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. AMBIO 43, 579–591 (2014).


Google Scholar
 

Embassy of the North Sea. Route 2030 – Embassy of the North Sea. Route 2030 – Embassy of the North Sea https://www.embassyofthenorthsea.com/route-2030/ (2024).

Edwards, P. et al. Tools for adaptive governance for complex social-ecological systems: a review of role-playing-games as serious games at the community-policy interface. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 113002 (2019).


Google Scholar
 

Hartt, M., Hosseini, H. & Mostafapour, M. Game On: Exploring the Effectiveness of Game-based Learning. Plan. Pract. Res. 35, 589–604 (2020).


Google Scholar
 

Meligrana, J. F. & Andrew, J. S. Role-playing simulations in urban planning education: a survey of student learning expectations and outcomes. Plan. Pract. Res. 18, 95–107 (2003).


Google Scholar
 

Robinson, G. M., Hardman, M. & Matley, R. J. Using games in geographical and planning-related teaching: Serious games, edutainment, board games and role-play. Soc. Sci. Humanities Open 4, 100208 (2021).


Google Scholar
 

Stadler, C. & Spörrle, M. Das Rollenspiel. ZPS 7, 165–188 (2008).


Google Scholar
 

Crow, M. L. & Nelson, L. P. The Effects of Using Academic Role-Playing in a Teacher Education Service-Learning Course. IJRP 26–34 https://doi.org/10.33063/ijrp.vi5.234 (2015).

Rautio, P. et al. For whom? By whom?”: critical perspectives of participation in ecological citizen science. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 17, 765–793 (2022).


Google Scholar
 

Hernandez-Santin, C., Amati, M., Bekessy, S. & Desha, C. Integrating biodiversity as a non-human stakeholder within urban development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 232, 104678 (2023).


Google Scholar
 

Clarke, R. et al. More-than-human participation. interactions 26, 60–63 (2019).


Google Scholar
 

Haldrup, M., Samson, K. & Laurien, T. Designing for Multispecies Commons. in (eds. Vlachokyriakos, V. et al.) 14–19 (ACM, Newcastle upon Tyne United Kingdom, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3537797.3537801.

O’Sullivan, C. Role-play and research. in Research Methods in Education 606–627 (Routledge, London, 2017). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539-30.

Kraus, R. You Must Participate: Violating Research Ethical Principles Through Role-Play. Coll. Teach. 56, 131–136 (2008).


Google Scholar
 

Schinko, T. & Bednar-Friedl, B. Fostering social learning through role-play simulations to operationalize comprehensive climate risk management: Insights from applying the RESPECT role-play in Austria. Clim. Risk Manag. 35, 100418 (2022).


Google Scholar
 

Ferrero, G., Bichai, F. & Rusca, M. Experiential Learning through Role-Playing: Enhancing Stakeholder Collaboration in Water Safety Plans. Water 10, 227 (2018).


Google Scholar
 

Agusdinata, D. B. & Lukosch, H. Supporting Interventions to Reduce Household Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Transdisciplinary Role-Playing Game Development. Simul. Gaming 50, 359–376 (2019).


Google Scholar
 

Alejandro, A., Maertens, L., Cheli, Z., Fragnière, A. & Sarrasin, O. Designing role-play simulations for climate change decision-making: A step-by-step approach to facilitate cooperation between science and policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 152, 103650 (2024).


Google Scholar
 

Garcia, C. A. et al. Strategy games to improve environmental policymaking. Nat. Sustain 5, 464–471 (2022).


Google Scholar
 

Stahlke, I. Das Rollenspiel als Methode der qualitativen Sozialforschung. (Universität Bremen, Bremen, 2001).

Oerter, R. Psychologie des Spiels. Beltz: Weinheim, 2013.


Google Scholar
 

Hsieh, H.-F. & Shannon, S. E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health Res. 15, 1277–1288 (2005).


Google Scholar
 

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology vol. 3 (2006).

Tafon, R., Saunders, F., Pikner, T. & Gilek, M. Multispecies blue justice and energy transition conflict: examining challenges and possibilities for synergy between low-carbon energy and justice for humans and nonhuman nature. Marit. Stud. 22, 1–16 (2023).


Google Scholar
 

de Groot, W. T. Environmental science theory. Concepts and methods in a one-world problem-oriented paradigm. (Leiden University, 1992). https://hdl.handle.net/1887/11548.

Walsh, Z., Böhme, J. & Wamsler, C. Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability research, practice, and education. Ambio 50, 74–84 (2021).