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 |