IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v53y2022i6p615-644.html

Offsetting Game—Framing Environmental Issues in the Design of a Serious Game

Author

Listed:
  • Nina V. Nygren
  • Ville Kankainen
  • Lucas Brunet

Abstract

Background Biodiversity crisis requires researchers to reflect on tools and strategies to engage with different stakeholders. We propose that serious games can be designed to introduce stakeholders to a novel environmental policy tool and to communicate research on environmental issues. Our case is biodiversity offsetting (BDO), a novel policy tool aiming to reconcile nature conservation with other land uses. As any media, games offer certain framings of the issues they communicate about—some aspects are made more salient than others. However, frame analysis has not been widely used to analyze the design choices or the messages communicated by games. We analyze how these framings are designed into a game communicating about environmental issues . Aim To intervene in the emerging public discussion on BDO in Finland, we designed a land use board game and during the design process, played it with public and private stakeholders who would soon encounter and implement biodiversity offsetting policies in Finland. The aim of this article is to describe how our framings of BDO affected the design process and how those framings interacted with the design decisions we made. With our analysis, we want to contribute to the understanding of how framings and design choices interact in game design and how paying attention to framings is especially important for the design of SGs. Method We analyze how our framings of biodiversity offsetting and our design choices interact in game design. Our understanding of biodiversity offsetting guided our game design, but the design choices also contribute to the framing of the issue itself. Results Game design choices strongly frame the topic of the game and thus influence the function of a serious game. Thus, the framings of the topic should be considered carefully during the game design process, especially in the context of serious games.

Suggested Citation

  • Nina V. Nygren & Ville Kankainen & Lucas Brunet, 2022. "Offsetting Game—Framing Environmental Issues in the Design of a Serious Game," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 53(6), pages 615-644, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:53:y:2022:i:6:p:615-644
    DOI: 10.1177/10468781221126786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10468781221126786
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10468781221126786?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franck Taillandier & Carole Adam, 2018. "Games Ready to Use: A Serious Game for Teaching Natural Risk Management," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(4), pages 441-470, August.
    2. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    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. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    2. Gomes, Sharlene L. & Hermans, Leon M. & Thissen, Wil A.H., 2018. "Extending community operational research to address institutional aspects of societal problems: Experiences from peri-urban Bangladesh," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 904-917.
    3. Theresa Tribaldos & Flurina Schneider, 2021. "Enabling Players to Develop Theories of Change for Sustainable Development: A Serious Game," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 52(5), pages 664-678, October.
    4. Edwards, David M. & Collins, Timothy M. & Goto, Reiko, 2016. "An arts-led dialogue to elicit shared, plural and cultural values of ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 319-328.
    5. Fanny Bastian & Rachel Bocquet & Nicolas Poussing, 2025. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Dialogue: Bypassing Elected Staff Representatives?," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 2097-2114, October.
    6. Franck Taillandier & Annabelle Moatty & Pénélope Brueder & Corinne Curt & Pascal Di Maiolo & Bruno Beullac & Alexandra Schleyer-Lindenmann, 2025. "Sim-MANA: A Learning Game to Promote Integrated Flood Risk Management Using Nature-based Solutions," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 56(6), pages 576-609, December.
    7. Kenter, Jasper O. & Reed, Mark S. & Fazey, Ioan, 2016. "The Deliberative Value Formation model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 194-207.
    8. Julio C. Zambrano-Gutiérrez & Claudia N. Avellaneda, 2023. "Inter-municipal vs. Inter-governmental Cooperation: Their Impact on International Aid," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 861-881, September.
    9. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    10. Muriel Frank & Vanessa Kohn & Roland Holten, 2024. "Q methodology and the sociotechnical perspective," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 599-631, December.
    11. Ensor, Jonathan & de Bruin, Annemarieke, 2022. "The role of learning in farmer-led innovation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    12. Christoph Szedlak & Bert Leyendecker, 2025. "Examining the Relationship Between Mental Workload, Learning Outcomes and Acceptance in a Process-Improvement Simulation Game," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 56(3), pages 261-288, June.
    13. Ngar-yin Mah, Daphne & Hills, Peter, 2014. "Participatory governance for energy policy-making: A case study of the UK nuclear consultation in 2007," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 340-351.
    14. repec:mth:bmh888:v:5:y:2017:i:1:p:30-51 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. de Bruin, Jilske Olda & Kok, Kasper & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke Alberttine, 2017. "Exploring the potential of combining participative backcasting and exploratory scenarios for robust strategies: Insights from the Dutch forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 269-282.
    16. Popa, Eugen Octav & Blok, Vincent & Katsoukis, Georgios & Schubert, Cornelius, 2023. "Moral impact of technologies from a pluralist perspective: Artificial photosynthesis as a case in point," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    17. Vitale Brovarone, Elisabetta & Staricco, Luca & Verlinghieri, Ersilia, 2023. "Whose is this street? Actors and conflicts in the governance of pedestrianisation processes," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    18. Bąkowska-Waldmann Edyta & Brudka Cezary & Jankowski Piotr, 2018. "Legal and Organizational Framework for the use of Geoweb Methods for Public Participation in Spatial Planning in Poland: Experiences, Opinions and Challenges," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 37(3), pages 163-175, September.
    19. Rehana Shrestha & Heike Köckler & Johannes Flacke & Javier Martinez & Martin Van Maarseveen, 2017. "Interactive Knowledge Co-Production and Integration for Healthy Urban Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-21, October.
    20. Kate Crowley & Brian W. Head, 2017. "The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: revisiting Rittel and Webber," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 539-547, December.
    21. Lisa Roeck & Wouter Dooren, 2024. "Performing policy conflict: A dramaturgical analysis of public participation in contentious urban planning projects," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(4), pages 761-785, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:simgam:v:53:y:2022:i:6:p:615-644. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.