IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v63y2023ics2212041623000426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

MARCHI: A serious game for participatory governance of ecosystem services in multiple-use protected areas

Author

Listed:
  • Laterra, Pedro
  • Weyland, Federico
  • Auer, Alejandra
  • Barral, Paula
  • González, Aira
  • Mastrángelo, Matías
  • Rositano, Florencia
  • Sirimarco, Ximena

Abstract

The management of multiple-use reserves is challenging due to trade-offs between the conservation of natural capital, the provision of different ecosystem services (ES) and the capture of its benefits, as well as a poor governance. In this context, the potential of serious games for simultaneous training of decision-makers and informing researchers is of special interest. Here we present MARCHI, a serious computer game inspired by a MAB Biosphere Reserve from Argentina, through which we evaluated player's preferences for investing annual budgets in different management instruments, and player's ability to feedback their investing decisions on the outcomes from previous games. The main objective for MARCHI players is to maximize the sustainable capture of benefits from natural capital under unpredictable changes in the rate of natural capital loss. Different social actors played the game in their simulated role of members of a management committee. Each game comprises 15 consecutive runs, and each run is an opportunity for players to allocate limited annual funds to Monitoring and Prospective, Control, Payment for ES (PES), Access to ES, and Land Use Planning. MARCHI was able to induce significant and relevant changes of initial preferences for conventional conservation instruments (Control) towards instruments that are little known and practically not applied in the country, such as the PES, or still poorly prioritized in the context of protected natural areas like the access to the ES. Mean Learning Index, an indicator of players ability to improve their game scores along successive games, was positive and significantly different from zero (18.29% ± SE = 4.46%). Final players' performance was not related to their allocation of time to reviewing tutorials, but to their time spent with a review screen after each game. This study illustrates the utility of serious games as a research-action tool for the participatory governance of ES.

Suggested Citation

  • Laterra, Pedro & Weyland, Federico & Auer, Alejandra & Barral, Paula & González, Aira & Mastrángelo, Matías & Rositano, Florencia & Sirimarco, Ximena, 2023. "MARCHI: A serious game for participatory governance of ecosystem services in multiple-use protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:63:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000426
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041623000426
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101549?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Edwards, 2023. "Serious games as an adaptive governance method," Chapters, in: Sirkku Juhola (ed.), Handbook on Adaptive Governance, chapter 7, pages 115-125, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Weyland, Federico & Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique & Auer, Alejandra Denise & Barral, María Paula & Nahuelhual, Laura & Larrazábal, Alejandra & Parera, Aníbal Francisco & Berrouet Cadavid, Lina Marí, 2019. "Ecosystem services approach in Latin America: From theoretical promises to real applications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 280-293.
    3. David Manuel-Navarrete & Gilberto Gallopín & Mariela Blanco & Martín Díaz-Zorita & Diego Ferraro & Hilda Herzer & Pedro Laterra & María Murmis & Guillermo Podestá & Jorge Rabinovich & Emilio Satorre &, 2009. "Multi-causal and integrated assessment of sustainability: the case of agriculturization in the Argentine Pampas," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 621-638, June.
    4. Nam C. Nguyen & Ockie J. H. Bosch, 2013. "A Systems Thinking Approach to identify Leverage Points for Sustainability: A Case Study in the Cat Ba Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 104-115, March.
    5. Paige Jadun & Laura J. Vimmerstedt & Brian W. Bush & Daniel Inman & Steve Peterson, 2017. "Application of a variance‐based sensitivity analysis method to the Biomass Scenario Learning Model," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 33(3-4), pages 311-335, July.
    6. Robert-Jan Den Haan & Mascha C. Van der Voort, 2018. "On Evaluating Social Learning Outcomes of Serious Games to Collaboratively Address Sustainability Problems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-26, December.
    7. Matías E. Mastrángelo & Natalia Pérez-Harguindeguy & Lucas Enrico & Elena Bennett & Sandra Lavorel & Graeme S. Cumming & Dilini Abeygunawardane & Leonardo D. Amarilla & Benjamin Burkhard & Benis N. Eg, 2019. "Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(12), pages 1115-1121, December.
    8. Lisette Beek & Manjana Milkoreit & Linda Prokopy & Jason B. Reed & Joost Vervoort & Arjan Wardekker & Roberta Weiner, 2022. "The effects of serious gaming on risk perceptions of climate tipping points," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-23, February.
    9. Hayley Stevenson & Graeme Auld & Jen Iris Allan & Lorraine Elliott & James Meadowcroft, 2021. "The Practical Fit of Concepts: Ecosystem Services and the Value of Nature," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(2), pages 3-22, Spring.
    10. Laterra, Pedro & Nahuelhual, Laura & Vallejos, María & Berrouet, Lina & Arroyo Pérez, Erika & Enrico, Lucas & Jiménez-Sierra, Cecilia & Mejía, Kathya & Meli, Paula & Rincón-Ruíz, Alexander & Sal, 2019. "Linking inequalities and ecosystem services in Latin America," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    12. Merlet, Pierre & Van Hecken, Gert & Rodriguez-Fabilena, René, 2018. "Playing before paying? A PES simulation game for assessing power inequalities and motivations in the governance of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 218-227.
    13. Costanza, Robert & Chichakly, Karim & Dale, Virginia & Farber, Steve & Finnigan, David & Grigg, Kat & Heckbert, Scott & Kubiszewski, Ida & Lee, Harry & Liu, Shuang & Magnuszewski, Piotr & Maynard, Sim, 2014. "Simulation games that integrate research, entertainment, and learning around ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 195-201.
    14. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    15. Verburg, René & Selnes, Trond & Verweij, Pita, 2016. "Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 186-197.
    16. Schultz, Lisen & Duit, Andreas & Folke, Carl, 2011. "Participation, Adaptive Co-management, and Management Performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 662-671, April.
    17. Lisa Mandle & Analisa Shields-Estrada & Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer & Matthew G. E. Mitchell & Leah L. Bremer & Jesse D. Gourevitch & Peter Hawthorne & Justin A. Johnson & Brian E. Robinson & Jeffrey R. Sm, 2021. "Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 161-169, February.
    18. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Windey, Catherine, 2015. "Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 117-125.
    19. Speelman, E.N. & García-Barrios, L.E. & Groot, J.C.J. & Tittonell, P., 2014. "Gaming for smallholder participation in the design of more sustainable agricultural landscapes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 62-75.
    20. Roldan Muradian & Murat Arsel & Lorenzo Pellegrini & Fikret Adaman & Bernardo Aguilar & Bina Agarwal & Esteve Corbera & Driss Ezzine de Blas & Joshua Farley & Géraldine Froger & Eduardo Garcia-Frapoll, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions," Post-Print hal-03067404, HAL.
    21. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Sirén, Elina & Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Weibel, Bettina, 2017. "Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 306-315.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manley, Kyle & Nyelele, Charity & Egoh, Benis N., 2022. "A review of machine learning and big data applications in addressing ecosystem service research gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    2. Schirpke, Uta & Ghermandi, Andrea & Sinclair, Michael & Van Berkel, Derek & Fox, Nathan & Vargas, Leonardo & Willemen, Louise, 2023. "Emerging technologies for assessing ecosystem services: A synthesis of opportunities and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Merlet, Pierre & Van Hecken, Gert & Rodriguez-Fabilena, René, 2018. "Playing before paying? A PES simulation game for assessing power inequalities and motivations in the governance of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 218-227.
    5. Balvanera, Patricia & Pérez-Harguindeguy, Natalia & Perevochtchikova, María & Laterra, Pedro & Cáceres, Daniel M. & Langle-Flores, Alfonso, 2020. "Ecosystem services research in Latin America 2.0: Expanding collaboration across countries, disciplines, and sectors," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    6. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.
    7. Stępniewska, Małgorzata & Lupa, Piotr & Mizgajski, Andrzej, 2018. "Drivers of the ecosystem services approach in Poland and perception by practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 59-67.
    8. Fletcher, Robert & Büscher, Bram, 2017. "The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 224-231.
    9. Hysing, Erik, 2021. "Challenges and opportunities for the Ecosystem Services approach: Evaluating experiences of implementation in Sweden," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    10. Moros, Lina & Vélez, María Alejandra & Corbera, Esteve, 2019. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Motivational Crowding in Colombia's Amazon Piedmont," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 468-488.
    11. Philip J. Platts & Marije Schaafsma & R. Kerry Turner & Neil D. Burgess & Brendan Fisher & Boniface P. Mbilinyi & Pantaleo K. T. Munishi & Taylor H. Ricketts & Ruth D. Swetnam & Antje Ahrends & Biniam, 2023. "Inequitable Gains and Losses from Conservation in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(3), pages 381-405, November.
    12. Lliso, Bosco & Pascual, Unai & Engel, Stefanie, 2021. "On the role of social equity in payments for ecosystem services in Latin America: A practitioner perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    13. Hugé, J. & Rochette, A.J. & de Béthune, S. & Parra Paitan, C.C. & Vanderhaegen, K. & Vandervelden, T. & Van Passel, S. & Vanhove, M.P.M. & Verbist, B. & Verheyen, D. & Waas, T. & Janssens, I. & Jans, 2020. "Ecosystem services assessment tools for African Biosphere Reserves: A review and user-informed classification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    14. Yu, Shuling & Cui, Baoshan & Xie, Chengjie & Ma, Xu & Man, Ying & Yan, Jiaguo & Fu, Jing, 2021. "A quantitative approach for offsetting the coastal reclamation impacts on multiple ecosystem services in the Yellow River Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    15. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    16. Blundo-Canto, Genowefa & Bax, Vincent & Quintero, Marcela & Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Perez-Marulanda, Lisset, 2018. "The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 160-183.
    17. Balázsi, Ágnes & Dänhardt, Juliana & Collins, Sue & Schweiger, Oliver & Settele, Josef & Hartel, Tibor, 2021. "Understanding cultural ecosystem services related to farmlands: Expert survey in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    18. Michalscheck, Mirja & Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Fischer, Gundula & Tittonell, Pablo, 2020. "Land use decisions: By whom and to whose benefit? A serious game to uncover dynamics in farm land allocation at household level in Northern Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    19. Kenny, Daniel C., 2017. "Modeling of natural and social capital on farms: Toward useable integration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 356(C), pages 1-13.
    20. Van Hecken, Gert & Merlet, Pierre & Lindtner, Mara & Bastiaensen, Johan, 2019. "Can Financial Incentives Change Farmers' Motivations? An Agrarian System Approach to Development Pathways at the Nicaraguan Agricultural Frontier," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 519-529.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:63:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.