Normal View Dyslexic View
Thematic Article
In My Boat: a card game designed by community researchers to explore the impact of environmental change on marine ecosystems
David White*†
,
david.white.myresearch@gmail.com
Lynda Stevenson‡
, Tim Pringle§
, Coriarna Morris¶
, Rebecca Sawyer♠
, , 
Alex Lewney♦
, Katie Mouat♣
, Natalie Southall††
Abstract
This work presents the development of an educational ecology-focused card game created in collaboration with a grass-roots community group. Employing a participatory action research (PAR) methodology, the group gathered and analysed data on public attitudes towards climate change and card games to inform the design of the game. Key findings revealed a general awareness of environmental change but a limited understanding of its causes. Additionally, the public expressed a positive attitude towards both card games and education through this medium. Building upon these insights, the group designed a card game that explores climate change and pollution threats to a marine ecosystem. The PAR approach was found to be effective in designing a card game through community-led dissemination of results and decision-making. This article is published in the Thematic Collection ‘Participatory Engagement and Game Playing for Achieving Sustainable Net-Zero Transition’, edited by Jing Zhao, Eirini Gallou, and Ievgeniia Kopytsia.
Keywords
participatory action researchgame designeducationecologyclimate changeIntroduction
Society—individuals, communities, and businesses—must act to mitigate the impact of climate change. Marine ecosystems around the British Isles face severe risks from climate change (Girling 2011), and yet are not as immediately visible as land-based plants and wildlife. Education is crucial for fostering public understanding on both the visible and invisible climate crisis and how it has the responsibility and necessity to act (McGregor et al. 2024).
The National Curriculum lacks detail on climate change (McGregor et al. 2024), and so there is a need for effective educational materials that would provide schools with tools to supplement classroom discussion. Climate anxiety among young people is also significant, with 31 per cent of 16–24-year-olds expressing concern about climate change (YouGov 2023). Educational materials could address this by providing information on individual agency and understanding.
Our earlier research (White et al. 2023) piloted a study into serious games and climate change. Building on this, the work presented here aims to bridge the divides in climate change education and the need for more reflective educational content through a research-driven educational card game for school-aged children. By offering a low-cost alternative to standard learning materials, the game aims to foster improved educational impact through better accessibility and increased engagement.
The methodology employs a Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach (Baum et al. 2006) and will involve public participants as co-researchers, integrating their perspectives into the design and development of the game.
In the process of developing the game, the following questions will be considered:
What are public perceptions of games and environmental responsibility?
How can these public perceptions be effectively integrated into an iterative design process for a game which communicates environmental principles?
To what extent does the PAR approach enhance the game design process?
Although this research is focused on UK ecosystems and educational goals, the methodology can be adapted globally.
Literature review
This review will examine the role of education in the climate crisis, the limitations this has on climate anxiety, the potential of serious games for learning, and the application of PAR in educational design.
Education plays a fundamental role in the climate crisis by informing the public on understanding what it is, and how they contribute to and could address the crisis. More specifically, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) aims to foster a sustainable future by empowering learners with critical thinking and decision-making (Michelsen & Wells 2017). In the UK a key criticism is that the National Curriculum marginalises climate change into science or geography without sufficient depth (Manley et al. 2012). Manley notes that students have responded by saying that ‘our education system routinely fails to educate, prepare and equip us’ to abate the ‘climate emergency’ and is too focused on exam results (Teach the Future 2020)
Climate anxiety, as discussed earlier, is a significant issue for children. It is argued by Verlie & Flynn (2022) that, if schools have a duty to protect young people, then schools are failing by not providing the agency and critical thought to equip children with the necessary skills to tackle climate change. It could thus be argued that the provision of accessible and engaging educational games is one small step towards empowering schools to address this.
Serious games could help bridge this educational gap by combining enjoyment with engagement and learning (Susi et al. 2007; Aldrich 2009). Games are well suited to fostering strategic and participatory learning and would have an impact on the shortcomings identified by Verlie. Gee (2003) argues that well-designed games encourage problem-solving and identity formation, and have immediate feedback, which aligns with constructivist theories of learning (as defined by Vygotsky & Cole 1978). For example, Tsai et al. (2021) discuss the board game ‘Be Blessed Taiwan’, which explores the dilemma between conservation and economic development. Similarly, Pope (2021) discusses more broadly how games reach a wide range of students, as games engage through a range of learning styles.
Our prior studies have focused on simulations of coastal marine ecosystems to examine the effectiveness of simulation complexity (White 2007, 2008). These simulations in turn informed a pilot project for a marine ecology game simulating the impact of warmer seas and microplastic pollution. After playing the game, the results showed that, while participants were generally aware of climate change, they were less familiar with microplastics. Additionally, they exhibited a stronger sense of personal responsibility during simulations of microplastic pollution compared to climate change. Our pilot helps to set a context for this study, as well as an opportunity to collect and compare further gather insights into public attitudes toward games and environmental issues.
PAR ensures that non-academic stakeholders are not only involved in decision-making, but also play active roles as researchers and interpreters. They are ultimately the beneficiaries of the qualitative research data used to design and develop the card game. Recent work studies how PAR can be applied to developing educational resources. Sousa et al. (2022) explore the feasibility and effectiveness of a PAR gaming approach, and suggest that, as well as a method for creation, PAR itself is a form of educational empowerment. Similarly, Ball et al. (2021) found improved engagement when designing an educational board game, specifically finding it useful for building capacity in community partnerships. A PAR approach also directly addresses a recommendation by Bron et al. (2022) that co-creation, a key aim of Scotland’s Learning for Sustainability policy, fulfils the need for a collaborative process with the freedom to ‘negotiate content and method’.
Methodology
The project aimed to create an educational card game through collaborative research and design. The key objectives were to: design a card game; focus on marine ecology, incorporating elements from previous research on the Scylla Reef (Stone et al. 2009); facilitate community group decision-making, supported by their research; and publish the game in a cost-effective format, requiring basic materials for printing and low-cost components.
Central to this was the formation of a community group that met at fixed intervals to collect and analyse data, informing game development.
The community group
Participants were recruited in Staffordshire, UK, via social media, with a call to join a group funded by Staffordshire University to design a board game. No prior experience with research or games was necessary. All research outputs would belong to the participants, consistent with the principles of PAR.
Nine participants aged 30–70 joined the project: one in their thirties, six in their forties, one in their fifties, and one in their sixties. Three were male and six were female. No restrictions or vetting were applied to ensure inclusivity, other than participants being 18 years old or above. Race, income, and education were not recorded to respect participant comfort and privacy and to limit data collection of personal information, as per Resnik (2024); this is discussed further in Limitations.
The group sessions
The group participated in four sessions held six weeks apart.
Session 1
The aim of the first session was to position participants as co-researchers, to create early opportunities for discussion and co-researcher agency, and to support inclusion through creative methods.
Co-researchers were introduced to the project, and their role as non-academic researchers. The importance of the ethical process was explained, along with consent and participant age restrictions (18+). This follows guidelines by Nierse et al. (2012) that co-researchers add value when dialogue is ‘open, inclusive and deliberate’, and that training should be considered where necessary.
Co-researchers were first given the task (1) of identifying challenges and opportunities for the project. This was to create an early opportunity to engage co-researchers as owners of the project as well as to gauge any issues which might arise, and, if possible, to pre-empt or assuage any concerns (see Cornish et al. (2023): Establishing working practices).
The second task (2) was for co-researchers to creatively identify how collected research data and personal ideas could inform game creation, supporting inclusive engagement and a voice in how the project would unfold.
Co-researchers, in each task, were given a variety of stationary and A1 paper to support their ideas. The use of creativity through visual and non-verbal communication was to further support inclusion and reduce power imbalances for those less vocal (Wang & Burris 1997).
The session would conclude with task (3), Collect Your Data. Participants received two sets of questions (see Tables 1 and 2) to collect data from their social groups, alongside ethical consent forms. While PAR principals would guide most of the decision-making, these questions were pre-prepared to scaffold early participation (see Cornish et al. 2023), with the view that the data collected would involve co-researcher direction. The questions were also subject to prior ethical review, as they would be used outside of the sessions led by the academic lead.
Table 1
Group participant data collection questions: climate change.
| Climate change questions | |
|---|---|
| Q1. | How would you describe your understanding of the current environmental issues impacting marine ecology? |
| Q2. | Have you ever participated in any activities or initiatives related to environmental conservation? Can you describe this experience? |
| Q3. | In your opinion, how can we better educate the public about the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems? |
| Q4. | What role do you think individuals can play in mitigating the impact of climate change on marine ecosystems? |
| Q5. | How do you feel about the idea of using games as a medium to raise awareness and educate about environmental issues? |
Table 2
Group participant data collection questions: board games.
| Board games questions | |
|---|---|
| Q1. | Can you describe your experience with board games? Which ones have you played and enjoyed the most? |
| Q2. | In your opinion, what makes a board game engaging and enjoyable? |
| Q3. | What were the names of any climate themed games you have played? If so, what was the experience like? |
| Q4. | How do you think board games can be used to educate players about important topics, such as environmental issues? |
| Q5. | If a board game was designed to simulate a marine ecology, what elements or features would you expect or want to see in it? |
Session 2
In Session 2, participants discussed the collected data, identifying common and unusual themes through thematic analysis (Krippendorff 2018), grouping common participant responses by identifying keywords, tones, and patterns. This transparent process subsequently informed later group decision-making.
The group adopted a hybrid middle-out approach to game design. First considering high-level (top-down) concepts—broader, overarching ideas such as whether the game would be individual or team-based, and thematic content such as whether to include marine species or humans. More detailed bottom-up concepts would then be considered—the essential rules and mechanics for the game. This design method was considered for its applicability to fast, iterative design, as discussed by Crane (2005).
The ideas were rated by each researcher’s individual preference using sticky dots (0 = negative, 1 = neutral, 2 = supportive) followed by a group review which synthesised decisions to shape the game’s initial design of the game.
Session 3
The third session focused on refining the game design: finalising the mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics (MDA) of the game, as detailed in Hunicke et al. (2004).
Tasks were tailored to the group’s progress, again following a middle-out method to maximise decision-making within the limited time available. In Task 1, the group would consider the questions: (1) what would be the overall style of gameplay? and (2) how would rules be enforced throughout the game? This would be followed by Task 2: (1) what ecosystems would be considered? and (2) what are the positive and negative impacts of interacting species?
Session 4: playtesting
The final session involved a playtest of the game to consider whether the game met its original aims, to identify design improvements, and to determine how the game might be further designed following external feedback—replicating aims in playtesting identified by Hart et al. (2021).
Results
Session 1
Task 1: challenges and opportunities
Three groups contributed a variety of ideas for the opportunities and challenges. Following the task, the researchers collectively created sub-topics in which ideas could be categorised, as detailed in Table 3.
Table 3
Identifying opportunities and challenges.
| Opportunities | |
|---|---|
| Learning and skill development | Gaining new skills, understanding game theory, and applying personal knowledge. |
| Community and social engagement | Building teamwork, enjoying social interaction, and working towards a shared goal |
| Educational impact | Enhancing educational content, particularly related to environmental awareness |
| Personal and global contribution | Making a positive difference in the world and contributing to environmental awareness. |
| Fun and creativity | Encouraging creativity and enjoyment through the process of creating a game |
| Challenges | |
| Logistical and time constraints | Managing time and balancing other commitments |
| Experience and knowledge gaps | Overcoming a lack of experience in research, gameplay, and content depth |
| Diversity and representation | Addressing questions about diversity within the group |
| Game design considerations | Deciding on game objectives, design, complexity, and the nature of the competition |
| Psychological factors | Handling disagreements, listening to each other, and managing creativity-related anxiety |
Both the opportunities and the challenges demonstrated a positive perspective on the prospect of groupwork; researchers also considered how the individual would both benefit and be challenged by the prospect of games design and environmental responsibility. This echoes our findings in the pilot study (White et al. 2023).
Task 2: effective data collection
Task 2 followed a similar approach to the first and is summarised in Table 4. This demonstrates a focus on the game being playable and useful. Opinions were that research should focus on the design of the game, researching similar games, and for the game to be successful. The group articulated the need for collaboration when playing the game, to echo the personal and collective responsibility of climate action. Arayapisit et al. (2023) find that collaborative education games outcompete competitive ones in knowledge improvement, but the idea of collaboration was revisited in a later session, when considering enjoyment and engagement.
Table 4
Identifying how collected data would be applied.
| Understanding and engaging players |
|---|
| Identify popular board games and understand player engagement. |
| Gauge preferences for setup ease, play speed, competition, and game type (card or board). |
| Explore whether the subject is niche and assess the potential gap in the market. |
| Design and creativity |
| Research graphics, symbols, colours, and keywords for game design. |
| Consider both individual choices and collective empowerment in game mechanics. |
| Assess whether to have a national or international focus in the game. |
| Education and environmental awareness |
| Investigate existing climate-themed games and understand their appeal. |
| Determine how educational the game should be and how design can captivate players. |
| Understand existing environmental knowledge levels and use research to inform design. |
| Collaboration and community |
| Explore how collaboration in games can foster environmental understanding. |
| Consider shifting focus from individual actions to community efforts. |
| Use research to collect diverse perspectives and turn complex topics into relatable ones. |
| Market and practical considerations |
| Assess public interest in environmental games and find out if there’s a market demand. |
| Debate the appropriateness of card vs. board game formats. |
| Reflect on the balance between complexity, fun, educational value, and potential impact. |
Session 2
Task 1: A group review of the data collected
The researchers collected 29 responses for the Attitudes to Board Game and Climate Change questionnaires. Participants responded as being male (12 responses) or female (17 responses). The age distribution of participants is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Participant age distributions: attitudes to board game and climate change questionnaires. Source: David White.
A bar chart of the number of participants by age group. Data set A: 1 (less than age 20). Data set B: 2 (aged 20–29). Data set C: 6 (aged 30–39). Data set D: 11 (aged 40–49). Data set E: 6 (aged 50–59). Data set F: 3 (aged 60–69).
Attitudes towards climate change
Q1. How would you describe your understanding of the current environmental issues impacting marine ecology?
Participants were evenly split between good understanding and a limited awareness. Even participants with limited understanding often cited warming seas and single-use plastics as key issues.
Q2. Have you ever participated in any activities or initiatives related to environmental conservation? Can you describe this experience?
Most reported minimal involvement, citing activities like recycling, litter picking, and reducing car use. One expressed frustration: ‘I have always tried to follow advice for recycling and conservation, but I feel it is up to large companies and governments to lead the way.’
Two had notable experience, one in sea-turtle protection and another in reforestation and animal sanctuaries.
Q3. In your opinion, how can we better educate the public about the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems?
The public, participants felt, should be made aware that ‘their individual actions directly impact … through the purchase of certain products’. Education should begin in schools, but also through TV and influencers. Emphasis was made on ‘small individual steps’, ‘small impacts’.
Q4. What role do you think individuals can play in mitigating the impact of climate change on marine ecosystems?
Key themes included reducing littering and purchasing decisions such as avoiding single-use plastics. Several participants believed systemic change from governments and corporations was also necessary: ‘Sometimes, you can’t change governments and practices.’ This theme was also found in White et al. (2023).
Q5. How do you feel about the idea of using games as a medium to raise awareness and educate about environmental issues?
Participants were enthusiastic: ‘excellent’, ‘a great idea’. Games were seen as engaging, particularly for younger audiences, but should avoid being ‘preachy’.
Attitudes towards board games
Q1. Can you describe your experience with board games? Which ones have you played and enjoyed the most?
Most participants were positive, associating games with family occasions. Frequently mentioned games included Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, and Exploding Kittens. Some noted that games can become tedious if overplayed or not competitive.
Q2. In your opinion, what makes a board game engaging and enjoyable?
Themes participants noted were competitiveness, inclusivity for all abilities and ages, and simple to learn—‘they work best when players of different abilities can join in’.
Q3. What were the names of any climate themed games you have played? If so, what was the experience like?
No participants had played a climate-themed game.
Q4. How do you think board games can be used to educate players about important topics, such as environmental issues?
Participants agreed that games make learning more enjoyable. They suggested climate-themed games could teach facts, reward positive environmental choices, and even tackle controversial topics to spark engagement—‘By being very topical and controversial’.
Q5. If a board game was designed to simulate a marine ecology, what elements or features would you expect or want to see in it?
Suggestions included using real-world data, creating rewards and penalties for environmental choices, and simulating ecosystem interactions. A recurring idea was highlighting the damage already done to marine ecosystems—‘[The game should show] how much damage we have already done and are continuing to do’.
Climate change findings
The responses reveal a public who are aware, but not necessarily engaged. This reflects the value–action gap (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002), where environmental concern is mismatched with meaningful action. Awareness of key marine threats such has warming seas and plastics ties with that of broad public messaging (Corner et al. 2015), but lacks the depth required to reduce the impact of human activities on non-visible marine environments. Whitmarsh et al. (2011) suggests that, to close this gap, an emphasis is needed on further education, community engagement, and individual participation to encourage broader social change.
Attitudes towards board games
The responses suggest a receptive audience for a climate-based game, which is upheld by their experiences playing traditional games such as Monopoly. Board games are considered inclusive and intergenerational, as similarly noted by Cès et al. (2025), and the ideas of real-world data and topical relevance echo the potential of knowledge games advocated by Schrier (2016). While they lack the experience of climate-based games, there is a recognition of a place for games as effective educational tools (Gee 2003) if they are engaging and accessible. The absence of such games highlights the potential of this study to contribute to their visibility and integration into mainstream culture.
Task 2: high-level concepts for game design
The group discussed the data and categorised ideas in three fields: Game Types, Game Play, and Game Content. The ideas were evidenced directly from the research gathered in Task 1.
For Game Type, researchers favoured a simple design, where complexity was embedded in the meaning of the cards rather than the rules. Ideas included mimicking ecological hierarchies or journeys, like Snakes and Ladders (see Pahl-Wostl 1993).
For Game Play, competitiveness was preferred over team-play, with players taking on adversarial roles ‘there should be winners and losers’. Concepts like ‘being bad is good’ and sabotaging opponents with negative cards, inspired by Exploding Kittens (Birkner 2017), resonated strongly. The group also discussed incorporating the concept of secret saboteurs from the computer game Among Us (Haqq et al. 2021).
For Game Content, the focus remained on marine ecology, but expanded to include land-based ecosystems and humans. Participants emphasised interconnectedness: ‘all ecosystems are connected’. It was proposed that the species would fit within a hierarchical ecosystem.
Although the group did not have design experience, and choices were based on preference and discussion, Task 2 has interesting parallels with game design studies. Games with simple rules can lead to emergent gameplay, which in turn can make games more enjoyable (Sweetser 2006). The group discussed the benefit of a game for which rules could be added and revised—this was revisited during playtesting. Competition versus collaboration has been a subject of many studies (e.g. Wang & Burris 1997; Buchinger & da Silva Hounsell 2018) and competition specifically has been seen to improve learning, enjoyment, and collaboration within competing teams.
Task 3: low-level concepts for core game rules
Through a voting system (see Methodology), the group decided on a card game format instead of a board game, valuing its simplicity and accessibility for schools. Cards would define game mechanics, offering flexibility and ease of reproduction (also found by Schriek 2016).
The concepts and votes are provided in Table 5.
The group shortlisted the design to: a card game; multiple ecosystems; players playing to win as individuals.
Table 5
Ideas and votes for the game format.
| Concept | Dots (votes) |
|---|---|
| Card game | 4 |
| Board game with cards | 4 |
| Board game without cards | 1 |
| Single ecosystem | 5 |
| Multiple ecosystems | 7 |
| Bad guy = other players | 2 |
| Bad guy = the game | 5 |
| Bad guy = mixed (game + players) | 7 |
| Team based (working as a team) | 0 |
| Self interest (individual players) | 7 |
| Mix of teams/self interest | 3 |
| The use of dice | 2 |
Task 4: a summary discussion for a starting point in the next session
Summarising the ideas in the prior tasks, the group agreed on the following:
1.
Players aim to create complete ecosystems (human, marine, or land-based).
2.
Certain cards benefit multiple players (for example, algae benefit humans, plants, and oceans).
3.
Some cards are harmful but vary in impact (for example, storms harm plants most, seas least).
4.
Some cards benefit one player but harm others (for example, fishing boats benefit humans but harm the sea).
Session 3: Let’s make a card game
During the third session, the group developed a fully formed alpha version of the game—a final version subject to modification. The session was divided into three tasks: first, agree on the final gameplay; second, decide on the ecosystems and species used within the game; third, decide on the ‘action’ cards, cards which dictate actions players can make.
Task 1: finalising game play
For this task the group discussed and debated gameplay. The following key elements were considered and agreed on:
A card game
The group confirmed that a card game was most suitable. As well as simplicity, some researchers felt this was most achievable given the group time, experience, and artistic capability. Cards also represent game complexity in a relatively simple format compared to a board (Kuosa 2016).
Players would collect cards to create an ecosystem ‘set’
This would require a player to have a set of cards from lower order species, up through various grades in an ecosystem hierarchy, to an apex predator. The first player to create a set would win.
Cards to form a pyramid
The ecosystem hierarchy a player needs to collect would form the shape of a pyramid. Lower order species cards would form the base, leading up to a single apex predator card.
Positive and negative action cards
These would be drawn from a pile, each turn. A player at any one time could have a maximum number of action cards to play. These cards would be played at each turn. Positive action cards would benefit the player, negative action cards would affect their opponents—this would be a key element of competitiveness in the game.
The group also discussed whether players could play as a team. To simplify the design, the group agreed that a player could just as well be two or three people, but this would not affect gameplay.
Task 2: the ecosystems and species
At this stage, the group still held the idea that several types of ecosystems could be present with potentially marine, human, and forest ecosystems, with a player choosing which set to create based on the cards they were dealt. With the limitation of time, and game simplicity, the group settled on a single marine ecosystem, enabling the group to consider four levels within this hierarchy:
1.
Producers, the lowest order: algae and other plants.
2.
Herbivores, those that consume producers: sea urchins and mussels
3.
Carnivores, those that consume herbivores, such as starfish.
4.
Apex predator, one that consume carnivores, such as shark.
While this hierarchy might not be strictly accurate, it would be reasonably representative, and accessible to non-marine ecologists.
Task 3: the action cards
Attack cards
Attack cards are negative cards a player can play. These cards, named after environmental disasters, force another player to give up (return to the pile) or lose (hand over to the attacking player) a species card. Four types were created: Oil Spill, Climate Change, Microplastics, and Overfishing.
Defensive cards
Defensive cards are positive cards which defend against attacking cards. Each defends against a specific attack—Conservation Policy (defends against Oil Spill), Fishing Policy (defends against Overfishing), Research Policy (defends against all), and Climate Policy (defends against Microplastics and Climate Change).
Promise cards
The group decided to create a new card type: the promise card. These would represent virtue signalling (Boykoff & Goodman 2009) by individuals and organisations adopting a climate change posture. Named Celebrity Promise and Government Promise, these cards would allow a player to swap a random card with another, but would have no bearing on the ecosystems in the game.
Many of the group’s design choices align with established principles. The choice of cards over a board format echoes Kuosa (2016), who argues for the effectiveness of simplicity and strategic depth especially in resource-constrained environments, as this study supports. The pyramid gameplay mechanic borrows conceptual collection mechanics often found in modern games such as Ticket to Ride. Action cards reflect a take-that mechanic (Evans 2023). These observations demonstrate the argument that PAR can result in pedagogically valuable gameplay, through lived experience and thought, even without expert knowledge of games design.
Session 4: let’s play a card game
The final session involved the researchers playtesting. The group split into four pairs, played the game, and discussed gameplay.
The group enjoyed the game: ‘That was good, it actually worked.’ Some in the group felt that gameplay was too long, highlighting a key aim from Session 2 to make gameplay short. To reduce gametime to 15–30 minutes, the number (but not types) of defensive and attack cards was reduced. The group also discussed how players, from the simple rules, might find techniques and strategies which increase enjoyment, and the idea of being an expert—similarly discussed by Sweetser (2006). This concept of rule fluidity, where players are not bound by rules, but guided by them (see also Salen Tekinbas & Zimmerman 2003), could be a future consideration for research.
Publication
The game was published online for free download (White 2024). By January 2025 the downloads consisted of: 52 per cent institutional affiliations, 35 per cent secondary schools or related organisations, and 13 per cent from universities in the UK, Portugal, Spain, USA, Australia, and the Netherlands.
Discussion and conclusion
What are public perceptions of games and environmental responsibility?
Our results indicate that participants exhibit varying levels of climate change awareness, from moderate to a more limited understanding. Games were viewed positively, and respondents were enthusiastic about the concept of games for improving educational awareness, considering games to be accessible and engaging. However, several participants noted that, while individual actions promoted by such games are important, systematic change is required at all levels of society to address environmental challenges. This suggests that, while games may promote individual responsibility, they could also have a larger role in stimulating discussion on the responsibility of government and large organisations. Future work could consider how a game might evolve into one which simulates in more detail the impact of negotiations with government and climate groups.
How can these public perceptions be effectively integrated into an iterative design process for a game which communicates environmental principles?
Data collected from participants was incorporated into a series of iterative design sessions.
First, participant input helped determine that a game could be an effective medium for communicating climate change, as no respondents were aware of an existing game.
The weaknesses in public environmental knowledge identified in the pilot (White et al. 2023), and in the collected data for this study, directly informed the design of the game. For example, Microplastics were included as a specific attack card to make this ‘invisible’ threat a tangible game mechanic.
The theme of competitiveness, rewards, and penalties argued for a change to the initial game theme of collaboration, to a more combative game. Including ‘topical and controversial’ ideas helped shaped the principle that a player could be both ‘good and bad’. While this may seem contrary to ethical education, research suggests that engaging with conflicting scenarios enhances reflection and memory retention (Plass et al. 2015). Being forced to defend against negative actions also promotes learning (Anderson et al. 2018).
Participants also argued for simplicity and accessibility. This represented a struggle and a conscious trade-off for the group. Initially it was planned to include multiple interconnected ecosystems, but this was deliberately set aside to meet the goal of simplicity, and so a single ecosystem was used. Within the same context, the group made the decision to create a card game instead of a board game, which in turn was found to be more adaptable and less rigid when rulemaking. Making the game adaptable also encourages emergent gameplay (Sweetser 2006), where players devise strategies beyond the rules, as well as aligning with constructivist theories which posit that adaptable games enhance learning more than rigid gameplay structures (Fierke & Nicholson 2001).
The data collected from Session 1 was repeatedly used as evidence for decision-making in subsequent sessions, demonstrating the effectiveness of non-academic research and reasoning in decision-making.
To what extent does the PAR approach enhance the game design process?
The collaborative method of Participatory Action Research ensured that diverse perspectives of the non-academic co-researchers and the participants from whom they collected data were included in the design of the game. This adds value: adopting real-world insights contributes to the relevance of the game; the game accurately reflects the lived experience and environmental concerns of the group, and those they collected information from (Kindon et al. 2007). As well as enriching the game content, it also empowered co-researchers as non-academic participants, fostering a sense of ownership and investment.
The PAR approach also demonstrates that non-experts can design a functional game in a limited timeframe, underscoring the value of collaborative design processes. The research and collaboration by the group did not just inform the design of the game, but also its form and structure. The group’s decisions on competitiveness, the card game format, and fluidity of rules align with established principles of affordance, playability, and procedural learning (Kuosa 2016).
A PAR methodology enhanced the process of development by fostering a sense of ownership and agency for the group. This empowerment of non-academic participants is supported by Freire’s thoughts on praxis (Freire 1970), the idea that action and reflection (within and throughout the sessions) combines to produce knowledge, and in turn social change—a core theme of the motivation of this study. As Vines et al. (2013) observed, co-design with non-experts can reveal new ideas and perspectives, demonstrating the effectiveness of PAR in enhancing the design.
Finally, considering the lack of awareness of environmental games, the co-creation of a research-informed, low-cost classroom tool that has been disseminated globally is a novel contribution.
Limitations
The researchers and participants were all adults due to ethical constraints, shielding this study from the principal audience—school-aged children. Additionally, the race and income of the group were not collected. Design choices were made from the perspective of the group, and without direct input from children, which potentially limits age-appropriate engagement. Broader feedback from players and schools would provide valuable insights for refining gameplay and assessing educational value.
While the game was designed to address these knowledge gaps, the focus of the four workshops was on the participatory design process and playability, not on measuring learning outcomes. The playtest confirmed the game worked, but did not assess knowledge transfer. Therefore, this study did not measure whether playing the game resolves public weakness in environmental concerns, such as microplastics, and is such a critical next step for future studies.
While PAR empowered the group, and demonstrates the capacity of non-experts, this lack of experience may also constrain innovation—favouring familiar mechanics, and cultural defaults.
Power dynamics also warrant reflection. Although the methodology was designed to reduce the power of individuals, as well as the academic, it is possible that the limited time may have reduced the necessary opportunities for participants to develop their ideas and voices within the group. Additionally, the academic retained control over key aspects, such as the initial questionnaires, and in setting the agenda for each session, which may have shaped the direction more than was intended.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by Staffordshire University. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback, which greatly strengthened the overall manuscript.
References
AldrichC. (2009), The Complete Guide to Simulations and Serious Games (San Francisco, CA, John Wiley and Sons).
AndersonC.G., DalsenJ., KumarV., BerlandM. & SteinkuehlerC. (2018), ‘Failing up: how failure in a game environment promotes learning through discourse’, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30: 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.03.002
ArayapisitT., PojmonpitiD., DansirisomboonK., JitverananrangsriK., PoosontipongD. & SipiyarukK. (2023), ‘An educational board game for learning orofacial spaces: an experimental study comparing collaborative and competitive approaches’, Anatomical Sciences Education, 16(4): 666–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2257
BallK., JalbertK. & TestL. (2021), ‘Making the board: participatory game design for environmental action’, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 11(1): 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-020-00645-2
BaumF., MacDougallC. & SmithD. (2006), ‘Participatory action research’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(10): 854. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662
BirknerC. (2017), ‘Get on board: from the new wave of kickstarter party games to the enduring appeal of classics like monopoly, board games are making a comeback’, ADWEEK, 58(10): 7–8.
BoykoffM.T. & GoodmanM.K. (2009), ‘Conspicuous redemption? Reflections on the promises and perils of the ‘celebritization’ of climate change’, Geoforum, 40(3): 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.04.006
BronJ., BovillC. & VeugelersW. (2022), ‘Students experiencing and developing democratic citizenship through curriculum negotiation: the relevance of Garth Boomer’s approach’, Curriculum Perspectives, 42(1): 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-021-00155-3
BuchingerD. & da Silva HounsellM. (2018), ‘Guidelines for designing and using collaborative–competitive serious games’, Computers & Education, 118: 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.007
CèsP., DuflosM. & GiraudeauC. (2025), ‘“I can’t wait to play with you again!”: intergenerational board games within families’, Family Relations, 74(1): 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.13117
CornerA., RobertsO., ChiariS., VöllerS., MayrhuberE.S., MandlS. & MonsonK. (2015), ‘How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators’, WIREs Climate Change, 6(5): 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.353
CornishF., BretonN., Moreno-TabarezU., DelgadoJ., RuaM., de-Graft AikinsA. & HodgettsD. (2023), ‘Participatory action research’, Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 3(1): 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1
CraneA. (2005), ‘Middle-out design’, in Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Designing for User EXperience (New York, AIGA). 51–es.
EvansC. (2023), ‘Game categories and mechanics’, in
AllcoatD. & EvansC. (eds), Meaningful Game Design: The Methodology and Psychology of Tabletop Games (Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003319511-6
FierkeK.M. & NicholsonM. (2001), ‘Divided by a common language: formal and constructivist approaches to games’, Global Society, 15(1): 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820124575
FreireP. (1970), Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, Herder and Herder).
GeeJ.P. (2003), ‘What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy’, Computers in Entertainment, 1(1): 20. https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950595
GirlingR. (2011), Sea Change: Britain’s Coastal Catastrophe (London, Random House).
HaqqD., SaatyM., RukajJ.T., MarulkarS., IsraelJ., NewtonE., PatelR., TanS. & McCrickardD.S. (2021), ‘Toward a design theory of game-mediated social experiences-a study of among us’, in Extended Abstracts of the 2021 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (New York, NY, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)), 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450337.3483469
HartA., FleggM., RathboneA., GantN., ButteryL., GibbsO. & DennisS. (2021), ‘Learning from the resilience playtest: increasing engagement in resilience promoting games through participatory design’, CoDesign, 17(4): 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1740278
HunickeR., LeblancM. & ZubekR. (2004), ‘MDA: a formal approach to game design and game research’, in AAAI Workshop Papers 2004 (California, USA, AAAI Press). https://aaai.org/papers/ws04-04-001-mda-a-formal-approach-to-game-design-and-game-research/
KindonS., PainR. & KesbyM. (2007), ‘Participatory action research: origins, approaches and methods’, in
KindonS., PainR. & KesbyM. (eds), Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods (Abingdon, Routledge). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203933671
KollmussA. & AgyemanJ. (2002), ‘Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?’, Environmental Education Research, 8(3): 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
KrippendorffK. (2018), Content Analysis: an Introduction to its Methodology (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage publications). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
KuosaS. (2016). Designing a Card Game, Bachelor’s Thesis. Kajaani University of Applied Sciences. Theseus. Available at: https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/113464/Kuosa_Samuli.pdf?sequence=1
ManleyJ.M., BarrA.N., EllinsK.K., HaddadN., LedleyT.S., DunlapC. & BardarE. (2012), ‘Why should we care? Awakening middle and high school students to the reality of climate change’, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2012: ED21D-05.
McGregorC., ChristieB. & KustatscherM. (2024), Planetary Justice (Bristol, UK, Bristol University Press), 196–212. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529235319.ch011
MichelsenG. & WellsP.J. (2017), A Decade of Progress on Education for Sustainable Development: Reflections from the UNESCO Chairs Programme (Paris, UNESCO Publishing). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZjIuDwAAQBAJ
NierseC.J., SchipperK., van ZadelhoffE., van de GriendtJ. & AbmaT.A. (2012), ‘Collaboration and co-ownership in research: dynamics and dialogues between patient research partners and professional researchers in a research team’, Health Expectations, 15(3): 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00661.x
Pahl-WostlC. (1993), ‘The hierarchical organization of the aquatic ecosystem: an outline how reductionism and holism may be reconciled’, Ecological Modelling, 66(1): 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(93)90040-Y
PlassJ.L., HomerB.D. & KinzerC.K. (2015), ‘Foundations of game-based learning’, Educational Psychologist, 50(4): 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533
PopeL.C. (2021), ‘Board games as educational tools leading to climate change action: a literature review’, The Journal of Sustainability Education, 21 May: 1–26. https://www.susted.com/wordpress/content/board-games-as-educational-tools_2021_05/
ResnikD.B. (2024), The Ethics of Research with Human Subjects, Volume 111 (Switzerland, Springer Nature). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-82757-0
Salen TekinbasK. & ZimmermanE. (2003), Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).
SchriekC.J. (2016), How a Simple Card Game Influences Design Reasoning: a Reflective Method (Utrecht, the Netherlands, Utrecht University).
SchrierK. (2016), Knowledge Games: How Playing Games Can Solve Problems, Create Insight, and Make Change (Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JWYdDAAAQBAJ
SousaC., NevesJ.C. & DamásioM.J. (2022), ‘Empowerment and well-being through participatory action research and accessible gaming: a case study with adults with intellectual disability’, Frontiers in Education, 7: 879626. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.879626
StoneR., WhiteD., GuestR. & FrancisB. (2009), ‘The virtual scylla: an exploration of “serious games”, artificial life and simulation complexity’, Virtual Reality, 13(1): 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-008-0111-0
SusiT., JohannessonM. & BacklundP. (2007), Serious Games: An Overview (Skövde, Institutionen för Kommunikation Och Information).
SweetserP. (2006). An Emergent Approach to Game Design: Development and Play, Ph.D. Thesis. Queensland University of Technology, CiteSeer.
KuosaS. (2016). Designing a Card Game, Bachelor’s Thesis. Kajaani University of Applied Sciences, Theseus. Available at: https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/113464/Kuosa_Samuli.pdf?sequence=1
Teach the Future (2020), Scotland Policy Asks. https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5f8805cef8a604de754618bb/5fa3e6b5d6845067a6eeadfd_Asks%20Scotland.pdf
TsaiJ.-C., LiuS.-Y., ChangC.-Y. & ChenC.-Y. (2021), ‘Using a board game to teach about sustainable development’, Sustainability, 13(9): 4942. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094942
VerlieB. & FlynnA. (2022), ‘School strike for climate: a reckoning for education’, Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 38(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2022.5
VinesJ., ClarkeR., WrightR., McCarthyP. & OlivierJ. (2013), ‘Configuring participation’, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470716
VygotskyL.S. & ColeM. (1978), Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RxjjUefze_oC
WangC. & BurrisM.A. (1997), ‘Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment’, Health Education & Behavior, 24(3): 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309
WhiteD. (2007), ‘Variance in water temperature as a factor in the modelling of starfish and mussel population density and diversity’, in
Almeida e CostaF., RochaL.M., CostaE., HarveyI. & CoutinhoA. (eds), Advances in Artificial Life (Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74913-4_16
WhiteD. (2008), ‘Developing artificial life simulations of marine biology and exploring measures of complexity’, in 2008 Second UKSIM European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation (Piscataway, NJ, IEEE), 232–235. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMS.2008.30
WhiteD. (2024), In My Boat. Available at: www.inmyboat.com (accessed 26 May 2026).
WhiteD., StoneR. & CracknellD. (2023), ‘The design, development and pilot study of a marine ecological simulation for education of environmental changes on marine life’, in
Haahr MadsG.S. & Rojas-SalazarA. (eds), Serious Games (Springer Nature, Switzerland), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44751-8_31
WhitmarshL., SeyfangG. & O’NeillS. (2011), ‘Public engagement with carbon and climate change: To what extent is the public “carbon capable”?’, Global Environmental Change, 21(1): 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.011
YouGovW.T. (2023), YouGov/Woodland Trust Survey Results (London, UK, YouGov PLC).
Cite
DOI: 10.5871/jba/014.a15
Published on: 10 June 2026
Volume: 14
Issue: Issue 2
Article view count: 4
Article download count: 0
Copyright statement
© The author(s) 2026. This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International LicenseCite this article
White, D., Stevenson, L., Pringle, T., Morris, C., Sawyer, R., Bailey, J., Lewney, A., Mouat, K. & Southall, N. (2026), ‘In My Boat: a card game designed by community researchers to explore the impact of environmental change on marine ecosystems’, Journal of the British Academy, 14(2): a15 https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/014.a15Crossref
Dimensions
Altmetric
Article metrics
View count: 4
Download count: 0
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
Received
October 2022
Accepted
May 2023
Published
July 2023
Creating spaces for co-research Rachel Proefke, Anna Barford
In the current era of peak youth, young people’s voices and authentic participation are needed more than ever. This article focuses on how youth participation in research can enhance wider understanding of young people’s experiences, perspectives and solutions, while also empowering young people. There is an established tradition of engaging young people and children with the qualitative research process, ranging from youth focussed research to youth-led participatory action research. Within this we occupy a middle ground, arguing for the need to create heterotopic spaces for participation in which both young researchers and professional researchers learn from one another’s expertise. Mindful of the roadblocks to authentic participation, this article systematically approaches engaging young people at six critical stages in the research process, namely: setting the framework; question design; data collection; analysis; validation; and sharing results for discussion and action. Youth co-research offers methodological rigour grounded in a reconceptualization of where expertise can be found, a committed approach to research training and youth empowerment, greater access to hard-to-reach groups of young people and data validity built upon close engagement with young researchers. To demonstrate our approach, we share in this article three youth co-research case studies, which focus on young people experiencing climate change disruptions in Uganda, young people impacted by COVID-19 in Indonesia and Nepal and a youth think tank convened between East, West and Southern Africa. The rigour and value of youth-engaged qualitative methodologies can benefit young people, as well as the academics, policymakers and NGOs with whom they work.
2 November 2023
‘What are you doing here?’: (mis)trust, COVID-19 pandemic, and sexual reproductive health rights Winstoun Muga, Emmy Kageha Igonya
We explore how the government’s messaging on COVID-19 pandemic response perpetuated mistrust and impeded people’s ability to access and utilise sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services. While the need for SRH information increased, public health messages fostered mistrust in sexual and reproductive health services. We draw on in-depth interviews and focus group discussions conducted among women, girls, and healthcare providers in five African countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda) between May and October 2021. We show how trust was largely eroded through preventive measures, such as stay-at-home directives, social distancing, curfews, and lockdowns. We argue that, on one hand, while state-led epidemic preparedness and response were geared towards the common good, i.e., controlling the virus, on the other hand, de-prioritisation of much-needed services for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), as well as a lack of transparency among some of the service providers, bred mistrust in healthcare. We conclude that ambiguity in communication and implementation of COVID-19 prevention measures further compromised access to and utilisation of sexual and reproductive health services.
19 December 2023
No Data Found