skip to main content


Title: Supporting Interventions to Reduce Household Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Transdisciplinary Role-Playing Game Development

Background. Designing interventions for conserving the food, energy, and water nexus at household level poses a significant challenge due to the complex interplay between human behaviors, technologies, and policies. Games show potential to increase awareness for environmental issues and influence behaviors towards more sustainable practices.

Aim. By bringing together scientists and practitioners in the game design process, a transdisciplinary (TD) approach is seen as a promising way to integrate available knowledge and establish ownership of the problem and solution options. Few gaming literature, however, looked at combining the two approaches in addressing resource conservation issues.

Method. We present a systematic account of the TD approach process of developing a role-playing game (RPG) - called HomeRUN (Role-play for Understanding Nexus).

Results. We documented our experiences in terms of challenges as well as the benefits of the TD approach. Interacting disciplines in this process include psychology, economics, engineering, climate, sociology, and computer science. Inputs from each discipline combined with feedback from social actors that include city government, utility companies, and community members facilitated continuous improvements of the RPG design.

 
more » « less
Award ID(s):
1639342
NSF-PAR ID:
10102517
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  
Publisher / Repository:
SAGE Publications
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Simulation & Gaming
Volume:
50
Issue:
3
ISSN:
1046-8781
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 359-376
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    Design thinking is essential to the success of a design process as it helps achieve the design goal by guiding design decision-making. Therefore, fundamentally understanding design thinking is vital for improving design methods, tools and theories. However, interpreting design thinking is challenging because it is a cognitive process that is hidden and intangible. In this paper, we represent design thinking as an intermediate layer between human designers’ thought processes and their design behaviors. To do so, this paper first identifies five design behaviors based on the current design theories. These behaviors include design action preference, one-step sequential behavior, contextual behavior, long-term sequential behavior, and reflective thinking behavior. Next, we develop computational methods to characterize each of the design behaviors. Particularly, we use design action distribution, first-order Markov chain, Doc2Vec, bi-directional LSTM autoencoder, and time gap distribution to characterize the five design behaviors. The characterization of the design behaviors through embedding techniques is essentially a latent representation of the design thinking, and we refer to it as design embeddings. After obtaining the embedding, an X-mean clustering algorithm is adopted to each of the embeddings to cluster designers. The approach is applied to data collected from a high school solar system design challenge. The clustering results show that designers follow several design patterns according to the corresponding behavior, which corroborates the effectiveness of using design embedding for design behavior clustering. The extraction of design embedding based on the proposed approach can be useful in other design research, such as inferring design decisions, predicting design performance, and identifying design actions identification.

     
    more » « less
  2. null (Ed.)
    Local business leaders, policy makers, elected officials, city planners, emergency managers, and private citizens are responsible for, and deeply affected by, the performance of critical supply chains and related infrastructures. At the center of critical supply chains is the food-energy-water nexus (FEW); a nexus that is key to a community’s wellbeing, resilience, and sustainability. In the 21st century, managing a local FEW nexus requires accurate data describing the function and structure of a community’s supply chains. However, data is not enough; we need data-informed conversation and technical and social capacity building among local stakeholders to utilize the data effectively. There are some resources available at the mesoscale and for food, energy, or water, but many communities lack the data and tools needed to understand connections and bridge the gaps between these scales and systems. As a result, we currently lack the capacity to manage these systems in small and medium sized communities where the vast majority of people, decisions, and problems reside. This study develops and validates a participatory citizen science process for FEW nexus capacity building and data-driven problem solving in small communities at the grassroots level. The FEWSION for Community Resilience (F4R) process applies a Public Participation in Scientific Research (PPSR) framework to map supply chain data for a community’s FEW nexus, to identify the social network that manages the nexus, and then to generate a data-informed conversation among stakeholders. F4R was piloted and co-developed with participants over a 2-year study, using a design-based research process to make evidence-based adjustments as needed. Results show that the F4R model was successful at improving volunteers’ awareness about nexus and supply chain issues, at creating a network of connections and communication with stakeholders across state, regional, and local organizations, and in facilitating data-informed discussion about improvements to the system. In this paper we describe the design and implementation of F4R and discuss four recommendations for the successful application of the F4R model in other communities: 1) embed opportunities for co-created PPSR, 2) build social capital, 3) integrate active learning strategies with user-friendly digital tools, and 4) adopt existing materials and structure. 
    more » « less
  3. Abstract

    Systems‐level approaches are required for addressing the world's major challenges at the food–energy–water nexus. Taking on complex issues, such as rising food insecurity, malnutrition, and food waste, concomitant with unprecedented levels of stress on environmental systems, will necessitate that future scholars and decision makers be prepared through transdisciplinary student training. However, in higher education, students tend to be siloed within their discipline. In this study, we present a case for the development of transdisciplinary graduate student training based on an inter‐institutional and fully remote group of graduate students who assembled during the COVID‐19 pandemic to address the issue of food waste. We use our wide‐ranging disciplinary backgrounds, high‐performance transdisciplinary team training, and stakeholder feedback to develop and conduct a weeklong social media campaign to share educational resources for reducing household food waste. This work offers valuable lessons learned through the student's lens to those seeking to create or improve future transdisciplinary training methods for tackling food waste and other global grand challenges. Key insights from this process include the importance of accountability and open communication when conducting collaborative teamwork, the utility of various mobile and online tools for effectively facilitating remote group work, and the vital role of transdisciplinarity in devising creative solutions.

     
    more » « less
  4. This research paper focuses on comparing engineering students’ beliefs and behaviors related to making process safety judgements. Despite emphasis on process safety education, serious health and safety accidents in the chemical process industry continue to occur. Investigations of major incidents have reported that, in many cases, tension caused by the need to balance several competing criteria was the culprit. While there have been substantial improvements in process safety education, most efforts have focused on preventing incidents through safer design, while few have focused on making process safety judgements in situations that have competing criteria. This pilot study investigates (1) what are engineering students’ beliefs about how they would approach process safety judgements with competing criteria? and (2) how do students react to the process of comparing their beliefs and behaviors in process safety judgements? We interviewed three chemical engineering students to determine their beliefs about making judgements in process safety contexts with competing criteria. Next, the students played through a digital process safety game, Contents Under Pressure (CUP). In CUP, students make process safety judgements in a digital chemical plant setting, and the judgements they encounter include a variety of criteria juxtapositions. Upon completing CUP, students were asked to reflect on their criteria priorities as they believed they played CUP through an online survey. GAP Profiles were generated as a way to directly compare initial beliefs, gameplay, and reflection criteria priorities. Finally, students reconciled differences between their beliefs and behaviors through a semi-structured interview, prompting students to think about the cause of the observed differences. In the initial beliefs interviews, we identified themes tied to prioritization of competing criteria. Some students rationalized their prioritizations by aligning them with their perceived priorities of the company, while others overcomplicated proposed hypotheticals in an attempt to find an optimized outcome. None of the participants could understand the link between process safety judgements and relationships, so they tended to devalue this criterion in their prioritizations. After playing CUP, the students communicated a better awareness of how relationships influence process safety judgements. Following gameplay, all participants stated that in-game feedback was critical to the ways in which they made judgements during CUP. Some participants indicated that their behaviors in CUP were more representative of the way they would approach process safety judgements in real life than their responses in the initial interview. This result may suggest that students have difficulty accurately predicting how they will apply process safety criteria in judgements without practicing these priorities in context. Results of this pilot study indicate that using a game-based approach to practice judgements with competing criteria gives students an opportunity to gain awareness about their approaches to process safety judgements and any differences that exist with their formulated beliefs. 
    more » « less
  5. This research paper focuses on comparing engineering students’ beliefs and behaviors related to making process safety judgements. Despite emphasis on process safety education, serious health and safety accidents in the chemical process industry continue to occur. Investigations of major incidents have reported that, in many cases, tension caused by the need to balance several competing criteria was the culprit. While there have been substantial improvements in process safety education, most efforts have focused on preventing incidents through safer design, while few have focused on making process safety judgements in situations that have competing criteria. This pilot study investigates (1) what are engineering students’ beliefs about how they would approach process safety judgements with competing criteria? and (2) what are students’ responses to differences between their beliefs and behaviors in process safety judgements with competing criteria? We interviewed three chemical engineering students to determine their beliefs about making judgements in process safety contexts with competing criteria. Next, the students played through a digital process safety game, Contents Under Pressure (CUP). In CUP, students make process safety judgements in a digital chemical plant setting, and the judgements they encounter include a variety of criteria juxtapositions. Upon completing CUP, students were asked to reflect on their criteria priorities as they believed they played CUP through an online survey. GAP Profiles were generated as a way to directly compare initial beliefs, gameplay, and reflection criteria priorities. Finally, students reconciled differences between their beliefs and behaviors through a semi-structured interview, prompting students to think about the cause of the observed differences. In the initial beliefs interviews, we identified themes tied to prioritization of competing criteria. Some students rationalized their prioritizations by aligning them with their perceived priorities of the company, while others overcomplicated proposed hypotheticals in an attempt to find an optimized outcome. None of the participants could understand the link between process safety judgements and relationships, so they tended to devalue this criterion in their prioritizations. After playing CUP, the students communicated a better awareness of how relationships influence process safety judgements. Following gameplay, all participants stated that in-game feedback was critical to the ways in which they made judgements during CUP. Some participants indicated that their behaviors in CUP were more representative of the way they would approach process safety judgements in real life than their responses in the initial interview. This result may suggest that students have difficulty accurately predicting how they will apply process safety criteria in judgements without practicing these priorities in context. Results of this pilot study indicate that using a game-based approach to practice judgements with competing criteria gives students an opportunity to gain awareness about their approaches to process safety judgements and any differences that exist with their formulated beliefs. 
    more » « less