Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Agriculture


Covered by: Elsevier - SCOPUS

Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index

CiteScore 2018: 0.78

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.246
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.916

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2391-9531
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Benefits and challenges of serious gaming – the case of “The Maladaptation Game”

Therese Asplund
  • Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Tina-Simone Neset
  • Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Janina Käyhkö
  • Faculty of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Lotten Wiréhn
  • Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Sirkku Juhola
  • Faculty of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-03-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2019-0010

Abstract

The use of digital tools and interactive technologies for farming systems has increased rapidly in recent years and is likely to continue to play a significant role in meeting future challenges. Particularly games and gaming are promising new and innovative communication strategies to inform and engage public and stakeholders with scientific research. This study offers an analysis of how a research based game on climate change maladaptation can support, but also hinder players’ sense-making processes. Through the analysis of eight gaming workshops, this study identifies challenges and support for the players’ sense-making. While it concludes that conceptual thinking of game content sometimes clashes with players’ everyday experiences and practice, possibly resulting in loss of credibility, this study also concludes that gaming may function as an eye-opener to new ways of thinking. Overall, this paper suggests that the communication of (social) science and agricultural practices through serious gaming has great potential but at the same time poses challenges due to different knowledge systems and interpretive frameworks among researchers and practitioners.

Keywords: climate change communication; maladaptation; serious gaming; focus groups; public understanding

References

  • Abid M., Schilling J., Scheffran J. and Zulfiqar F., Climate change vulnerability, adaptation and risk perceptions at farm level in Punjab, Pakistan, Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 547, 447-460Google Scholar

  • Asplund T., Climate Change Frames and Frame Formation – an analysis of climate change communication in the Swedish agricultural sector, PhD thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 2014Google Scholar

  • Asplund T., Natural versus anthropogenic climate change: Swedish farmers’ joint construction of climate perceptions, Public Understanding of Science, 2016, 25, 5, 560-575Google Scholar

  • Asplund T., Communicating Climate Science: A Matter of Credibility— Swedish Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate-Change Information, The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses, 2018, 10(1), 23-38Google Scholar

  • Barnett J. and O’Neill S., Maladaptation, Editorial: Global Environmental Change, 2010, 20, 211-213Google Scholar

  • Bindi M., and Olesen J.E., The responses of agriculture in Europe to climate change, Regional Environmental Change, 2011,11(1),151-158Google Scholar

  • Bishop I.D., Landscape planning is not a game: should it be?, Landscape and Urban Planning. 2011, 100, 390-392Google Scholar

  • Burnet F., More scientists and less surrogates, Journal of Science Communication 2010, 9, 2Google Scholar

  • Capstick S.B. and Pidgeon N.F., Public perception of cold weather events as evidence for and against climate change, Climatic Change, 2014, 122(4), 695–708Google Scholar

  • Curtis V., Public Engagement Through the Development of Science-Based Computer Games: The Wellcome Trust’s “Gamify Your PhD” Initiative, Science Communication, 2014, 36(3), 379–387Google Scholar

  • Dewulf A., Gray B., Putnam L., Lewicki R., Aarts N., Bouwen R. and Van Woerkum C., Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective, Human Relations, 2009, 62(2), 155–193Google Scholar

  • Entman R.M., Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm, Journal of Communication, 1993, 43, 4, 51–58Google Scholar

  • Eurobarometer, Attitudes of European Citizens towards the environment, Special Eurobarometer 468, TNS opinion & social, 2017Google Scholar

  • Fiske J., Introduction To Communication Studies, Routledge, London, 1990Google 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, Environmental Research Letters, 2018, 13, 063005Google Scholar

  • Goffman E., Frame Analysis. An essay of the organization of experience. Reprint. Northeastern University Press, Boston, 1974Google Scholar

  • Ingram J., Mills J., Dibari C., Ferrise R., Ghaley B.B., Hansen J.G., Iglesias A., Karaczun Z., McVittie A., Merante P., and Molnar A., Communicating soil carbon science to farmers: Incorporating credibility, salience and legitimacy, Journal of Rural Studies, 2016, 48, 115-128Google Scholar

  • IPCC, AR 5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014Google Scholar

  • Juhola S., Klein N., Käyhkö J., and Neset T.S.S., Climate change transformations in Nordic agriculture?,. Journal of Rural Studies, 2017, 51, 28-36Google Scholar

  • Juhola S., Glaas E., Linnér B.O., and Neset T.S.S., Redefining maladaptation, Environmental Science & Policy, 2016, 55, 135-140Google Scholar

  • Juhola S., Goodsite M.E., Davis M., Klein R.J.T., Davídsdóttir B., Atlason R., Landauer M., Linnér B-O., Neset T.S.S., Glaas E., Eskeland G., and Gammelgaard Ballantyne A., Adaptation decision-making in the Nordic countries: assessing the potential for joint action, Environ Syst Decis, 2014, 34, 600–611Google Scholar

  • Juhola S., Driscoll P., de Suarez J. M., and Suarez P., Social strategy games in communicating trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation in cities, Urban Climate, 2013, 4, 102-116Google Scholar

  • Kitzinger J., The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants, Sociology of Health and Illness, 1994, 16(1), 103–121Google Scholar

  • Linell P., Transkription av tal och samtal: teori och praktik [Transcription of talk and conversation: theory and practice], report from Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 1994Google Scholar

  • Magnan A.K., Schipper E.L.F., Burkett M., Bharwani S., Burton I., Eriksen S., Gemenne F., Schaar J. and Ziervogel G., Addressing the risk of maladaptation to climate change, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2016, 7(5), 646-665Google Scholar

  • Marková I., Linell P., Grossen M. and Salazar Orvig A., Dialogue in focus groups: exploring socially shared knowledge, Equinox, London, 2007Google Scholar

  • Marshall N.A., Park S., Howden S.M., Dowd A.B., and Jakku E.S., Climate change awareness is associated with enhanced adaptive capacity, Agricultural Systems, 2013, 117, 30-34Google Scholar

  • Mayer I.S., Carton L., de Jong M., Leijten M., and Dammers E., Gaming the future of an urban network, Futures, 2004, 36, 311-333Google Scholar

  • Moser S., Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2010, 1(1), 31–53Google Scholar

  • Moser S., Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say?, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2016, 7, 345-369Google Scholar

  • Neset T.S.S., Asplund T., Käyhkö J., and Juhola S. Making sense of Maladaptation: Nordic Agriculture stakeholders’ perspectives Climatic Change, 2019 (Published online) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02391-z

  • Neset T.S.S., Wiréhn L., Klein N., Käyhkö J., and Juhola S. Maladaptation in Nordic Agriculture, Climate Risk Management, 2018 (In press) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2018.12.003

  • Ouariachi T., Olvera-Lobo M.D., and Gutiérrez-Pérez J., Analyzing Climate Change Communication Through Online Games: Development and Application of Validated Criteria, Science Communication, 2017, 39(1), 10-44Google Scholar

  • Patt A.G., Peterson N., Carter M., Velez M., Hess U. and Suarez, P., Making index insurance attractive to farmers, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2009, 14, 737-757Google Scholar

  • Poplin A., Playful public participation in urban planning: a case study for online serious games, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 2012, 36, 195-206Google Scholar

  • Reckien D. and Eisenack K., Climate change gaming on board and screen: A review, Simulation & Gaming, 2013, 44(2-3), 253-271Google Scholar

  • Rötter R.P., Höhn J.G. and Fronzek S., Projections of climate change impacts on crop production: a global and a Nordic perspective, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A–Animal Science, 2012, 62(4),166-180Google Scholar

  • Snow D.A. and Benford R.D., Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization, International Social Movement Research, 1988, 1, 197–218Google Scholar

  • Washington Ottombre C., Pijanowski B., Campbell D., Olson J., Maitima J., Musili A., Kibaki T., Kaburu H., Hayombe P., Owango E., Irigia B., Gichere S., and Mwangi A., Using a role-playing game to inform the development of land use models for the study of a complex socio-ecological system, Agricultural systems, 2010, 103, 117-126Google Scholar

  • Wibeck V., Fokusgrupper: om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som undersökningsmetod [Focus Groups. On focused group interviews as research method], Sweden, Studentlitteratur, 2010Google Scholar

  • Wibeck V., Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change – some lessons from recent literature, Environmental Education Research, 2014, 20(3), 387-411Google Scholar

  • Wiréhn L., Nordic agriculture under climate change: A systematic review of challenges, opportunities and adaptation strategies for crop production, Land Use Policy, 2018, 77, 63-74Google Scholar

  • Wärneryd O., Games for urban and regional planning: a pedagogical tool, Technological forecasting and social change, 1975, 7, 397-412Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-06-24

Accepted: 2019-01-17

Published Online: 2019-03-26

Published in Print: 2019-01-01


Citation Information: Open Agriculture, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 107–117, ISSN (Online) 2391-9531, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2019-0010.

Export Citation

© 2018 Therese Asplund et al., by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License. BY 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in