A review of serious games for urban water management decisions: current gaps and future research directions

Journal Article (2022)
Author(s)

Aashna Mittal (TU Delft - Sanitary Engineering)

Lisa Scholten (TU Delft - Policy Analysis)

Zoran Kapelan (TU Delft - Sanitary Engineering)

Research Group
Sanitary Engineering
Copyright
© 2022 A. Mittal, L. Scholten, Z. Kapelan
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118217
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2022
Language
English
Copyright
© 2022 A. Mittal, L. Scholten, Z. Kapelan
Research Group
Sanitary Engineering
Issue number
118217
Volume number
215
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Urban water management (UWM) is a complex problem characterized by multiple alternatives, conflicting objectives, and multiple uncertainties about key drivers like climate change, population growth, and increasing urbanization. Serious games are becoming a popular means to support decision-makers who are responsible for the planning and management of urban water systems. This is evident in the increasing number of articles about serious games in recent years. However, the effectiveness of these games in improving decision-making and the quality of their design and evaluation approaches remains unclear. To understand this better, in this paper, we identified 41 serious games covering the urban water cycle. Of these games, 15 were shortlisted for a detailed review. By using common rational decision-making and game design phases from literature, we evaluated and mapped how the shortlisted games contribute to these phases. Our research shows that current serious game applications have multiple limitations: lack of focus on executing the initial phases of decision-making, limited use of storytelling and adaptive game elements, use of low-quality evaluation design and explicit indicators to measure game outcomes, and lastly, lack of attention to cognitive processes of players playing the game. Addressing these limitations is critical for advancing purposeful game design supporting UWM.