Interactive simulation with En-ROADS spurs climate action among decision-makers

Effective climate mitigation requires rapid, evidence‑based decisions across government, business, and civil society. Yet widespread misconceptions, disinformation, and insufficient understanding of high‑impact climate solutions continue to impede meaningful action among leaders. Traditional risk communication approaches often fail to overcome these barriers, particularly where climate change is politically polarized or socially contested. Here, we investigate whether interactive climate policy simulations with the En‑ROADS model can strengthen leaders’ knowledge, affective engagement, and motivation to take climate action.

Using a mixed‑methods design, we engaged 949 participants in 37 En‑ROADS workshops and Climate Action Simulations, an interactive role-play designed around the En-ROADS simulator. Participants in the role-play are assigned to different delegations at a mock UN climate conference, including governments, representatives from conventional energy, clean tech, industry and finance, and forest and agriculture. Pre‑/post‑survey responses (N≈290 matched) and semi‑structured interviews (N=42) were used to evaluate changes in knowledge, affect, and intended actions.

Survey‑based results show that interactive engagements significantly improved participants’ understanding of which climate policies have high versus low mitigation impact. Participants made substantial gains in identifying high‑impact solutions such as carbon pricing, cutting methane and non‑CO₂ greenhouse gases, and improving building energy efficiency. Participants also improved their ability to identify which solutions have little impact, even when those solutions are commonly favored. Such low-impact solutions do little to reduce near-term emissions and include afforestation, soil carbon sequestration, and technological carbon removal.

Engagement with En‑ROADS also increased participants’ affective engagement with climate change. Participants reported statistically significant increases in both the personal importance they attach to the issue and their sense of empowerment to contribute to climate solutions. These effects were similar across virtual and in‑person workshops, indicating a potential to scale across formats.

Interview‑based analyses confirm the survey results. Interviewees described the simulation experience as improving their understanding of the urgency, scale, and systemic nature of the climate challenge. Many emphasized that En‑ROADS’s interactive features made complex dynamics of the climate and energy systems easier to grasp than other modes of learning. The workshops generated strong emotional responses, including a sense of urgency and hope, which, in turn, motivated participants to act. Social interactions during the sessions played a critical role: collaborative scenario development fostered a sense of collective efficacy, reinforcing participants’ willingness to advocate for organizational or policy change.

Most interviewees reported taking or planning climate‑related actions after to the workshop. These actions include reducing their personal emissions, strategic organizational changes (e.g., establishing an internal carbon price or shifting investment strategies), and advocating for governmental or corporate policy change. Participants who were focused on sustainability prior to En-ROADS simulations also made gains, reporting improved clarity on high‑impact solutions and a strengthened sense of collective efficacy for climate action.

Overall, the results demonstrate that interactive En‑ROADS workshops can improve leaders’ understanding of effective climate mitigation strategies, activate emotional engagement, and motivate both individual and institutional climate action. This suggests that simulation‑based approaches can help bridge the persistent gap between climate knowledge and climate action among key societal actors.