Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 149, Issue 3–4, pp 319–333 | Cite as

Effectiveness of gaming for communicating and teaching climate change

  • Jasper N. Meya
  • Klaus Eisenack
Article

Abstract

Games are increasingly proposed as an innovative way to convey scientific insights on the climate-economic system to students, non-experts, and the wider public. Yet, it is not clear if games can meet such expectations. We present quantitative evidence on the effectiveness of a simulation game for communicating and teaching international climate politics. We use a sample of over 200 students from Germany playing the simulation game KEEP COOL. We combine pre- and postgame surveys on climate politics with data on individual in-game decisions. Our key findings are that gaming increases the sense of personal responsibility, the confidence in politics for climate change mitigation, and makes more optimistic about international cooperation in climate politics. Furthermore, players that do cooperate less in the game become more optimistic about international cooperation but less confident about politics. These results are relevant for the design of future games, showing that effective climate games do not require climate-friendly in-game behavior as a winning condition. We conclude that simulation games can facilitate experiential learning about the difficulties of international climate politics and thereby complement both conventional communication and teaching methods.

Keywords

Climate change International climate agreements Simulation games Climate change communication Education for sustainable development 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are especially grateful to Iris Bröse, Marina Dreßler, Laura Hillwig, Swanhild Klink, Benjamin Koller, and Sabine Vogelsang for helping to collect the data. We thank Jürgen Bitzer, Nils Droste, Ulan Kasymor, Dennis Meadows, Lukas Meya, Jonas Ø. Nielsen, Jens Rommel, Dimitrios Zikos, and two anonymous reviewers as well as the selection committees for the German Simulation and Gaming Award, the German National Society for Civic Education’s Treasury for Outstanding Dissertations for helpful comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2254_MOESM1_ESM.docx (146 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 145 kb)

References

  1. Anderies JM, Janssen MA, Bousquet F, Cardenas JC, Castillo D, Lopez MC, Tobias R, Vollan B, Wutich A (2011) The challenge of understanding decisions in experimental studies of common pool resource governance. Ecol Econ 70(9):1571–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoki M (2011) Institutions as cognitive media between strategic interactions and individual beliefs. J Econ Behav Organ 79(1–2):20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballantyne AG, Wibeck V, Neset TS (2016) Images of climate change–a pilot study of young people’s perceptions of ICT-based climate visualization. Clim Chang 134(1–2):73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett S (1994) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 46:878–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett S (2013) Climate treaties and approaching catastrophes. J Environ Econ Manag 66(2):235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capstick S, Whitmarsh L, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N, Upham P (2015) International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. WIREs Clim Change 6:35–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen-Chen S, Van Zomeren (2018) Yes we can? Group efficacy beliefs predict collective action, but only when hope is high. J Exp Soc Psychol 77:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa-Gomes MA, Huck S, Weizsäcker G (2014) Beliefs and actions in the trust game: creating instrumental variables to estimate the causal effect. Games Econ Behav 88:298–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crookall D (2010) Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simul Games 41(6):898–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dieleman H, Huisingh D (2006) Games by which to learn and teach about sustainable development: exploring the relevance of games and experiential learning for sustainability. J Clean Prod 14(9):837–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenack K (2013) A climate change board game for interdisciplinary communication and education. Simul Games 44(2–3):328–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisenack K, Kähler L (2016) Adaptation to climate change can support unilateral emission reductions. Oxf Econ Pap 68(1):258–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenack K, Petschel-Held G (2004) KEEP COOL—gambling with the climate. Wiesbaden. Spieltrieb GbR (Pfarrgasse 2, 65321 Niedermeilingen, Germany). Retrieved from http://www.climate-game.net
  14. Eisenack K, Marscheider N, Meyer E, Bethlehem L (2016) KEEP COOL mobil - das mobile Multiplayerspiel zur Klimapolitik. Carl-von-Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg Retrieved from http://www.keep-cool-mobil.de Google Scholar
  15. European Commission (2015) Public opinion in the European Union. Standard Eurobarometer 83. Survey conducted by TNS opinion & social at the request of the European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  16. Fennewald TJ, Kievit-Kylar G (2012) Integrating climate change mechanics into a common pool resource game. Simul Games 44(2–3):427–451Google Scholar
  17. Finus M, Pintassilgo P (2013) The role of uncertainty and learning for the success of international climate agreements. J Public Econ 103:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franzen A, Vogl D (2013) Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: a comparative analysis of 33 countries. Glob Environ Chang 23(5):1001–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften (2010) ALLBUS 2010 - the German general social survey. DocumentationGoogle Scholar
  20. Gugerell K, Zuidema C (2017) Gaming for the energy transition. Experimenting and learning in co-designing a serious game prototype. In: J Clean Prod.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.142 Google Scholar
  21. Hagen A, Altamirano-Cabrera J-C, Weikard H-P (2016) The influence of political pressure groups on the stability of international environmental agreements, Oldenburg discussion papers in economics V-391-16Google Scholar
  22. Hagen A, Kähler L, Eisenack K (2017) Transnational environmental agreements with heterogeneous actors. In: Çağatay S (ed) Economics of international environmental agreements: a critical approach. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 79–96Google Scholar
  23. Haug C, Huitema D, Wenzler I (2011) Learning through games? Evaluating the learning effect of a policy exercise on European climate policy. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 78:962–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoel M (1992) International environmental conventions: the case of uniform reductions of emissions. Environ Resour Econ 2(2):141–159Google Scholar
  25. (Infratest) TNS Infratest Sozialforschung (2010) Fragebogen der Shell Jugendstudie 2010. Available at: http://www.shell.de/content/dam/shell-new/local/country/deu/downloads/pdf/youth-study-2010questionaire.pdf
  26. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. Klöckner CA (2015) The psychology of pro-environmental communication: beyond standard information strategies. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuster EL, Fox GA (2017) Current state of climate education in natural and social sciences in the USA. Clim Chang 141(4):613–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindahl T, Bodin Ö, Tengö M (2015) Governing complex commons - the role of communication for experimental learning and coordinated management. Ecol Econ 111:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayer I, Bekebrede G, Harteveld C, Warmelink H, Zhou Q, Ruijven T, Lo J, Kortmann R, Wenzler I (2014) The research and evaluation of serious games: toward a comprehensive methodology. Br J Educ Technol 45(3):502–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meadows D, Fiddaman T, Shannon D (1989) FISH BANKS, LTD. Durham. University of New Hampshire, Institute for Policy and Social Science ResearchGoogle Scholar
  32. Meinzen-Dick R, Janssen M A, Kandikuppa S, Chaturved R, Rao K R, Theis S (2017) Playing games to save water: collective action games for groundwater management in India. CBIE Working Paper Series, 2017–001, Available ate: https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/10287/cbie_wp_2017-001_0.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  33. Mendler de Suarez J, Suarez P, Bachofen C, Fortugno N, Goentzel J, Gonçalves P, Grist N, Macklin C, Pfeifer K, Schweizer S, van Aalst M, Virji H (2012) Games for a new climate: experiencing the complexity of future risks , technical report, the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the longer-range future. Boston University, BostonGoogle Scholar
  34. Meya JN, Meya L (2016) Das Klima aufs Spiel setzen. Simulation der internationalen Klimaverhand-lungen mit dem Planspiel KEEP COOL. Gesellschaft-Wirtschaft-Politik 2(2016):249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meya JN, Kornek U, Lessmann K (2018) How empirical uncertainties influence the stability of climate coalitions. Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ 18(2):175–198Google Scholar
  36. Ostrom E (2012) Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory 49:353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reckien D, Eisenack K (2013) Climate change gaming on board and screen: a review. Simul Games 44:253–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rhodes E, Axsen J, Jaccard M (2017) Exploring citizen support for different types of climate policy. Ecol Econ 137:56–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rumore D, Schenk T, Susskind L (2016) Enhancing communities’ readiness to adapt to climate change through role-play simulations. Nat Clim Chang 06(2016):745–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salen K, Zimmerman E (2004) Rules of play: game design fundamentals. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Shepardson DP, Niyogi D, Choi S, Charusombat U (2011) Students’ conceptions about the greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change. Clim Chang 104(3):481–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sterman JD (2011) Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Clim Chang 108(4):811–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sterman JD, Fiddaman T, Franck T, Jones A, McCauley S, Rice P, Sawin E, Siegel L (2013) Management flight simulators to support climate negotiations. Environ Model Softw 44:122–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sterman J, Franck T, Fiddaman T, Jones A, McCauley S, Rice P, Sawin E, Siegel L, Rooney-Varga JN (2015) WORLD CLIMATE: a role-play simulation of climate negotiations. Simul Games 46:348–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stoutenborough JW, Liu X, Vedlitz A (2014) Trends in public attitudes toward climate change: the influence of the economy and Climategate on risk, information, and public policy. Risk Hazard Crisis Public Policy 5:22–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tjernström E, Tietenberg T (2008) Do differences in attitudes explain differences in national climate change policies? Ecol Econ 65(2):315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. United Nations (2009) Learning from each other. The UNECE strategy for education for sustainable development. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. van Pelt SC, Haasnoot M, Arts B, Ludwig F, Swart R, Biesbroek R (2015) Communicating climate (change) uncertainties: simulation games as boundary objects. Environ Sci Pol 45:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wangler L, Altamirano-Cabrera JC, Weikard HP (2013) The political economy of international environmental agreements: a survey. Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ 13(3):387–403Google Scholar
  50. Wibeck V (2014) Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change – some lessons from recent literature. Environ Educ Res 20(3):387–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu JS, Lee JJ (2015) Climate change games as tools for education and engagement. Nat Clim Chang 5:413–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ziegler A (2017) Political orientation, environmental values, and climate change beliefs and attitudes: an empirical cross country analysis. Energy Econ 63:144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of OldenburgOldenburgGermany
  2. 2.Resource Economics GroupHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations