IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v11y2021i1d10.1007_s13412-020-00645-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making the board: participatory game design for environmental action

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine Ball

    (Arizona State University)

  • Kirk Jalbert

    (Arizona State University)

  • Lisa Test

    (No Fracking AZ)

Abstract

The US state of Arizona is historically known as a rich source of helium-bearing gas, and market pressures have renewed interest in extracting helium throughout the state’s Holbrook Basin. In response, a group of concerned residents emerged to educate the public and engage with regulators. However, the obscurities of the helium industry and regulatory frameworks complicated the group’s efforts. This paper details a participatory action research project called Helium Futures, a co-designed serious board. We argue that Helium Futures generated capacity for engagement by collaboratively distilling industry and regulatory perspectives, as well as resulted in a device for enrolling allies. Helium Futures, furthermore, highlights how empowerment occurs when situated expertise is accounted for in design-oriented action research. Findings from the project inform research on the public understanding of extraction industries, as well as work studying the impacts of participatory games on public understandings of environmental science.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine Ball & Kirk Jalbert & Lisa Test, 2021. "Making the board: participatory game design for environmental action," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 12-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:11:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s13412-020-00645-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-020-00645-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-020-00645-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-020-00645-2?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. Andy Stirling, 2012. "Opening Up the Politics of Knowledge and Power in Bioscience," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-5, January.
    2. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    3. Jason S. Wu & Joey J. Lee, 2015. "Climate change games as tools for education and engagement," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(5), pages 413-418, May.
    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. Andrew Chapman & Timothy Fraser & Melanie Dennis, 2019. "Investigating Ties between Energy Policy and Social Equity Research: A Citation Network Analysis," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Backstrom, Jesse, 2019. "Strategic Reporting and the Effects of Water Use in Hydraulic Fracturing on Local Groundwater Levels in Texas," Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University 307177, Center for Growth and Opportunity.
    3. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    4. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Wang, Jianliang & Feng, Lianyong & Steve, Mohr & Tang, Xu & Gail, Tverberg E. & Mikael, Höök, 2015. "China's unconventional oil: A review of its resources and outlook for long-term production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 31-42.
    6. Julia Jouan & Mireille De Graeuwe & Matthieu Carof & Rim Baccar & Nathalie Bareille & Suzanne Bastian & Delphine Brogna & Giovanni Burgio & Sébastien Couvreur & Michał Cupiał & Benjamin Dumont & Anne-, 2020. "Learning Interdisciplinarity and Systems Approaches in Agroecology: Experience with the Serious Game SEGAE," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Rebecca Yvonne Bayeck, 2020. "Examining Board Gameplay and Learning: A Multidisciplinary Review of Recent Research," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(4), pages 411-431, August.
    8. Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik & de Jong, Sijbren & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2016. "The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: Exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 390-399.
    9. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. Angela Filipe & Alicia Renedo & Cicely Marston, 2017. "The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-6, May.
    11. Wheeler, David & MacGregor, Margo & Atherton, Frank & Christmas, Kevin & Dalton, Shawn & Dusseault, Maurice & Gagnon, Graham & Hayes, Brad & MacIntosh, Constance & Mauro, Ian & Ritcey, Ray, 2015. "Hydraulic fracturing – Integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 299-308.
    12. Arnold, Gwen & Farrer, Benjamin & Holahan, Robert, 2018. "How do landowners learn about high-volume hydraulic fracturing? A survey of Eastern Ohio landowners in active or proposed drilling units," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 455-464.
    13. Iñigo Capellán-Pérez & David Álvarez-Antelo & Luis J. Miguel, 2019. "Global Sustainability Crossroads : A Participatory Simulation Game to Educate in the Energy and Sustainability Challenges of the 21st Century," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-23, July.
    14. Edwards, Michelle L., 2018. "Public perceptions of energy policies: Predicting support, opposition, and nonsubstantive responses," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 348-357.
    15. David I. Waddington & Thomas Fennewald, 2018. "Grim FATE: Learning About Systems Thinking in an In-Depth Climate Change Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 49(2), pages 168-194, April.
    16. Jacob B. Rode & Peter H. Ditto, 2020. "Comparing the effects of a news article’s message and source on fracking attitudes in an experimental study," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 255-269, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    19. Ramírez-Orellana, Alicia & Martínez-Victoria, MCarmen & García-Amate, Antonio & Rojo-Ramírez, Alfonso A., 2023. "Is the corporate financial strategy in the oil and gas sector affected by ESG dimensions?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    20. Mayer, Adam, 2017. "Political identity and paradox in oil and gas policy: A study of regulatory exaggeration in Colorado, US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 452-459.

    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:spr:jenvss:v:11:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s13412-020-00645-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.