Normal View Dyslexic View
Thematic Article
Play to CHANGE: preliminary findings on using gamification to support a low-carbon transition
Max White†
, ,
white-hot_games@hotmail.com
Abstract
Project CHANGE (Curating a Human-centred Approach for net zero: Gamifying Energy-behaviour) investigates how gamification can support public engagement in domestic energy retrofit and encourage sustainable behaviours. It introduces a prototype strategy-based simulation game that enables players to explore retrofit options, behavioural choices, and co-benefits within a risk-free, interactive environment. The paper outlines the development of the game, including its theoretical foundations, systems-based design, and user-centred methodology. The architecture integrates dynamic simulations [such as weather, NPC (non-player character) behaviour, and financial modelling] to illustrate how everyday decisions influence energy use and well-being. Initial findings from internal testing and a small-scale public trial indicate that gamified experiences can improve understanding of retrofit processes and increase perceived agency over household energy use. The paper also reflects on usability challenges, accessibility considerations, and constraints arising from limited resources and sample size. Overall, Project CHANGE demonstrates the potential of serious games as part of a broader toolkit for supporting systemic sustainability education and behaviour change. 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
energy retrofitgamificationbehaviour changepublic engagementco-benefitsIntroduction
We need radical changes in the way we use and manage energy in our homes and communities to achieve decarbonisation goals. Mass energy retrofit of residential properties in the UK provides a viable way to reduce the carbon emissions of the existing housing stock, generate health and well-being co-benefits for residents, and contribute towards net zero. The UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) highlights that with one of the oldest housing stocks in Western Europe, approximately 29 million homes require retrofitting before 2050 (UKGBC n.d.). Mass energy retrofit requires the active involvement of building occupants, individual and collective property owners, and energy communities as key beneficiaries within the value chain (Morgan et al. 2024). However, there is a lack of understanding in the end users’ role in managing home and community energy in the decarbonisation process. Engaging the public in mass energy retrofit initiatives presents several significant challenges, stemming from a combination of financial (Tozer et al. 2023), logistical (Lusambili et al. 2011), informational (Jansson-Boyd et al. 2017; Morgan et al. 2024), and behavioural barriers (Morgan et al. 2024). These challenges can impact participation, slowing down retrofit adoption. Moreover, the economic benefit of retrofit is not effectively communicated to the end users, and communication around non-monetary benefits, such as health and quality of life, are also ineffective, leading to underappreciation from end users (Frankowski & Tirado Herrero 2021). This lack of understanding and awareness hinders the development of effective strategies to engage and support the end users’ transition to low-carbon living and ultimately, achieving net-zero goals.
Emerging research utilising digital interventions through feedback tools, smartphone or web-based apps, or interactive dashboards and gamification in public engagement has shown positive results in addressing the above challenges (Morton et al. 2020). EU-funded projects such as REMOURBAN and eTEACHER, developed by Nottingham City Council, have engaged citizens in a co-creating process both digitally and face-to-face to improve liveability through energy efficiency and to reflect users’ energy needs (Morton et al. 2020; Preston et al. 2020). EnerGAware (Casals et al. 2020), a digital game developed to promote reduced energy consumption and carbon emissions through behaviour change, has yielded an average electricity saving of 3.46 per cent and an average gas saving of 7.48 per cent (Casals et al. 2020). An energy trading game (board and digital) developed in the UK (Watts the Deal) demonstrated the potential of gamification in sustaining public engagement beyond education and training (Fell & Schneiders 2020).
However, as noted in previous research, digital engagement tools such as gamification face specific challenges around motivating sustained engagement and participation (Casals et al. 2020; Morton et al. 2020). Project CHANGE (Curating a Human-centred Approach for net zero: Gamifying Energy-behaviour) explores digital solutions in the form of a prototype serious game/simulation that can support residents in making low-carbon choices and domestic energy behaviour changes that can have a positive impact on demand reduction, users’ health and well-being, and effectively engage and encourage the end users in the mass retrofit process. As an initial exploration within a wider research framework, this paper examines Project CHANGE in its design rationale, gameplay mechanism, user experience, and potential impacts. The research seeks to answer the following questions:
RQ1:
What role could the CHANGE game play in engaging the public and enhancing their understanding of retrofit options and behaviour influences on energy use?
RQ2:
How could multiple design strategies and theoretical frameworks be utilised in translating retrofit concepts into engaging and educational gameplay mechanics?
RQ3:
How did iterative prototyping and user-centred design influence the development of the interface, mechanics, and accessibility features of the CHANGE game?
Literature review
Energy retrofit, behaviour, engagement
The UK government is committed to reaching net zero by 2050, including a 68 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. To meet such an unprecedented carbon reduction target requires both radical technological innovation and substantial changes in social practice (Geels et al. 2018). Understanding the end users’ role and engaging them in the demand-side energy reduction and relevant behaviour change, as well as the adoption of retrofit measures, are crucial to ensuring the implementation of mass energy retrofit. For example, space heating demand per person varied by a factor of up to 14 between dwellings dependent on occupant behaviour (Pilkington et al. 2011). To date, government-initiated retrofit schemes and behaviour change campaigns have yielded less than satisfactory results (Putnam & Brown 2021). This could be attributed to two reasons. Firstly, current retrofit policy and guidance from the government focus mainly on a techno-economic narrative with technological interventions (such as loft insulation, heat pumps, energy-efficient appliances, or PV panels), emphasising energy efficiency, whilst overlooking consumption and demand reduction (Cherry et al. 2015; Zhao 2023). Secondly, the behaviour change campaign supported by socio-psychological research focuses predominantly on individual consumers, failing to notice the collective structures and systemic barriers involved in individual decision-making (Geels et al. 2018). Engaging the public in retrofit and behaviour change needs a combination of technological automation and systemic support to increase capability and opportunity (Staddon et al. 2016). A socio-technical approach is needed to address the complexity of the challenges in mass retrofit and end-user engagement.
The intention of adopting energy retrofit has been noted as driven mostly by personal choice, rather than by regulations (Tetteh et al. 2023). Residential retrofits can achieve energy and carbon savings while delivering social, economic, and health co-benefits (Putnam & Brown 2021). Often, the co-benefits, such as health and quality of life are amongst the most influential factors that motivate fuel-poor households in energy retrofit (Tozer et al. 2023). In other words, co-benefits should really be considered the ‘core benefits’ when it comes to encouraging end-user-initiated retrofit. Other factors include financial (for example, payback period), policy and organisational (supply-side actors), trust and communication, technical, and attitudes and values (Tetteh et al. 2023; Tozer et al. 2023). Research has shown that in retrofit scenarios, end-user engagement at the early stage can result in better comfort perception scores and optimal energy use outcomes (Baird 2015; Ahmed et al. 2021; Bobrova et al. 2022). End users’ prior knowledge about energy retrofit can benefit the technological innovations adopted in retrofit (Bobrova et al. 2022). Whereas barriers and dissatisfactions occurred when information was not effectively communicated (for example, using newly deployed technology), or the daily norms and practices of the users were disrupted (Morgan et al. 2024). Jansson-Boyd et al. (2017) demonstrated that using a combination of educational framework, creating a sense of community, and being self-aware of behaviour and value alignment, can effectively increase the engagement of social housing tenants in energy retrofit.
Gamification in public engagement and education
The application of gamification and serious games in sustainability education is an increasingly important area of research. Gamification, which applies game design elements in non-game contexts, has been shown to significantly enhance engagement and learning in environmental education (Mora et al. 2020; Costin et al. 2024). In particular, the ability to transform abstract environmental concepts into interactive experiences makes serious games a powerful tool for fostering sustainability awareness. As Mora et al. (2020) argued, gamified approaches can engage users in sustainable behaviours by providing immediate feedback and rewards, thus reinforcing positive environmental actions.
Studies highlighted the potential of gamified learning in promoting Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Costin et al. (2024) demonstrate how game-based learning can be leveraged to advance SDGs by fostering behaviours such as energy conservation and resource management. Their case study emphasised the transformative power of gamification in influencing long-term sustainable practices. This aligns with the findings of Gustafsson et al. (2009) and Yang et al. (2024), who explored how gamification has been applied to green initiatives, showing that games can effectively raise awareness of environmental sustainability while motivating players to adopt sustainable behaviours.
Serious games, which combine entertainment and education, are also highly effective in translating complex sustainability challenges into manageable scenarios. By immersing players in these simulations, serious games can offer valuable insights into energy management, waste reduction, and other sustainability-focused practices. Mylonas et al. (2019) exemplified this with their educational Internet of Things (IoT)-based gamified approach to increasing energy awareness in schools. This innovative use of technology not only engaged students but also encouraged them to adopt sustainable behaviours in their daily lives. In addition to promoting individual behaviour change, gamification in sustainability education also has a collective impact. Paganelli et al. (2019) described how gamification, when integrated into educational tools such as IoT devices, fostered collaboration and shared learning in schools. These tools not only educate students but also create a sense of community responsibility, encouraging students to work together towards common sustainability goals.
Recent research has expanded the understanding of how gamification can influence energy efficiency in residential homes. Li et al. (2024) provided a systematic review of 306 studies, narrowing down to 21 key papers that assess gamification strategies tailored to different building types and occupant profiles. Their work emphasises the importance of balancing intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and combining quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate behavioural change effectively. Similarly, Abdurahmanovic & Cadenbach (2025) conducted a comprehensive review of gamification and serious games in energy systems, with a particular focus on district heating. Their findings indicate that gamified interventions can lead to energy savings ranging from 4 per cent to 42 per cent, depending on the context and design. Bourazeri et al. (2017) review how gamification can effectively engage users in managing household energy consumption by simulating real-world energy challenges. Collectively, these studies underscore the transformative potential of gamification in promoting energy efficiency, while highlighting the importance of tailoring interventions and adopting user-centred design principles to maximise impact.
Despite the potential of gamified learning environments, there are challenges in ensuring their effectiveness. Rudolf (2023) explored these challenges and highlighted that, while gamification can enhance motivation, it requires careful design to avoid superficial engagement. Games need to balance entertainment with educational value to ensure that players internalise the sustainable practices they learn.
Digital or non-digital game design
Patagar et al. (2023) found that household access to digital technology is steadily improving in both capability and affordability. Virtual tools for exploring heating and cooling challenges can make complex ideas more understandable and support better decision-making, as also noted by Kalyani (2024). Simulating strategies virtually is more sustainable than real-world trials due to lower financial and environmental costs. However, as Bercaru & Popescu (2024) highlight, digital games may not suit all households. Limited hardware, lack of IT skills (Patagar et al. 2023), unreliable internet, or privacy concerns (Barth & de Jong 2017) can be significant barriers. Board games offer a practical alternative. They are often simpler, promote social interaction, and support experiential learning and inclusivity (Heron et al. 2018).
Game development typically uses engines that support 2D or 3D formats (Roettl & Terlutter 2018). While 3D engines enable complex visuals (Cossu 2019), they require more powerful hardware and are harder to use. In contrast, 2D and 2.5D engines—like GameMaker Studio 2—offer ease of use, faster development, and sufficient visual depth. The CHANGE prototype was developed in GameMaker Studio 2 for its accessibility and potential for adaptation into a board game. It can also be exported to consoles (with the Enterprise version), further enhancing accessibility.
Methodology
The design of the Project CHANGE prototype is grounded in a systems-based approach to simulate the multifaceted dynamics of domestic energy use and retrofit decision-making. The game unfolds as a time-based simulation in which players manage a virtual household, navigating seasonal variations, financial constraints, and behavioural choices that influence energy consumption and well-being. See Figure 1. Central to the gameplay is a modular architecture that integrates dynamic subsystems including weather, occupancy schedules, thermal comfort, and retrofit interventions, allowing players to interactively test strategies and observe outcomes. This section details the technical and pedagogical rationale underpinning the architecture, the simulation logic, and the user interaction model of the game, highlighting how these elements collectively support experiential learning and behaviour change in the context of low-carbon transitions.
Figure 1.
Graphical overview of the user’s journey. © Max White.
Flowchart of Project CHANGE. The player selects a starting household, receives a budget, and manages the home through upgrades, daily energy-use decisions, seasonal weather effects, and random events. Mini-games earn mindset points that unlock automated sustainable behaviours. The game ends if comfort or budget falls too low or if sustainability is achieved, followed by reflection on real-world retrofit choices.
The game was designed to be played on a personal computer (with or without internet connection), with the provision to be made into a desktop/board version, and a multiplayer online version to suit different levels of accessibility. The methodology encompasses the following steps:
(1)
Theoretical framework of game design;
(2)
Game design and technical framework;
(3)
Game prototype evaluation: iterative prototype testing, data collection and analysis;
(4)
Future development.
The project has completed the first stage of prototype development, with a small-scale controlled trial where quantitative and qualitative feedback from users were obtained and analysed [four months, steps (1)–(3)]. The following will explain the first three steps in this research and present the preliminary findings.
Theoretical framework of game design in Project CHANGE
Project CHANGE integrates multiple theoretical frameworks to support its design. These frameworks come from areas such as behavioural economics, gamification, systems thinking, and educational psychology. Below are the key theoretical influences:
•
Behavioural economics and habit formation: The design of the game incorporates behavioural economics and principles of habit formation. These are crucial for motivating players through systems that reward incremental progress, mimic real-life activity, and unlock automation. Studies highlight how these principles lead to sustainable behaviour change, making it a relevant framework for Project CHANGE (Costin et al. 2024; Gustafsson et al. 2009; Hamari et al. 2014; Yang et al. 2024).
•
Incorporation of free-to-play (F2P) concepts: Project CHANGE utilises design practices commonly found within F2P games. While there are design elements, such as systems dependent on the passing of time and game mechanic automation that the player can unlock and use to optimise their performance, it is important to note that it does not contain microtransactions or any other form of real-world payment. This means Project CHANGE uses these design principles to augment the games systems without prescribing the associated business practices. Nicholson’s (2020) exploration of F2P mechanics revealed that F2P mechanics can be aligned with gamification to engage players in a meaningful way.
•
Constructivist learning theory: The design of the game is rooted in constructivist learning theory, which advocates for active, hands-on learning. Players engage with the game by experimenting and experiencing the effects of their actions, promoting sustainable habits. Gee (2021) discusses how games support this form of learning, which is central to Project CHANGE.
•
Systems thinking in game design: Systems thinking plays a significant role in Project CHANGE by allowing players to explore interconnected systems within the game world. This approach is informed by Capon (2020), who explored how game design can incorporate complex systems to educate players on subjects like sustainability. The integration of systems thinking helps make the game more immersive and reinforces the interconnectedness of real-world sustainability.
Game design and technical framework
The development of Project CHANGE was guided by a synthesis of theoretical frameworks from behavioural science, educational psychology, and systems thinking, operationalised through a simulation-based game environment. The game unfolds as a time-based, interactive simulation in which players manage a virtual household, making decisions about energy use, retrofit investments, and daily behaviours under dynamic environmental and financial conditions. Constructivist learning theory is embedded in the structure of the game through player-driven problem-solving tasks that encourage experimentation and reflection. Self-determination theory is reflected in the choice-based progression system in the game, which supports autonomy, competence, and relatedness through meaningful feedback and adaptive challenges. These theoretical underpinnings inform the design of core mechanic, such as modular property layouts, modelling of NPC (non-player character) behaviour, and co-benefit feedback loops creating a learning environment that mirrors real-world complexity while remaining accessible and engaging.
Project CHANGE was developed through a user-centred design process, informed by early-stage focus groups and interviews with residents. Iterative testing refined the s mechanics, interface, and difficulty of the game to align with user needs and expectations. Designed for informal learning settings, the game integrates theoretical frameworks into its core systems: constructivist learning is reflected in player-led experimentation and problem-solving, while self-determination theory underpins the choice-based progression and feedback mechanisms.
The team conducted ongoing improvements via internal and external assessments, guaranteeing the game was accessible, engaging, and educationally effective. Design choices were influenced by the primary goal of the game: to encourage sustainable behaviours and raise awareness of energy retrofitting. Features were incorporated or eliminated according to their congruence with these learning outcomes. The game integrated reflective prompts and realistic scenarios to connect gameplay with real-world applications, simulating the repercussions of household energy choices and motivating players to adopt sustainable practices in their everyday lives.
Figure 2.
Modular pre-made building layouts as the main game interface. © Max White.
Top-down, pixel-art game screen showing a small house interior divided into rooms (kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, and living area). A player character stands inside the home, with interface panels around the edges displaying character status, household information, and text prompts related to energy use or decisions.
This section outlines the technical architecture, gameplay systems, and design rationale that underpin the CHANGE prototype to model retrofit decision-making and behavioural change. The game was designed to balance educational objectives with player engagement, using the following core elements:
Dynamic simulation systems: The game incorporated a time and calendar system, a weather simulation system, an event system, and a temperature system. They simulate real-world seasonal variations, influencing energy consumption, financial cycles, and household routines which directly impact gameplay, encouraging adaptive strategies. The household controller aggregates data on the temperatures of the rooms, energy usage, and finances, reflecting real-world challenges in home energy management.
Modular system: The game features a selection of modular pre-made building layouts representing a range of typical UK properties, making provision for future customisation by players (for matches to their homes) (Figure 2).
Engaging gameplay mechanics: Players manage a household by balancing budgets, investing in sustainable technologies, and unlocking ‘mindsets’—automated behaviours like switching off lights or adjusting heating to reduce energy use. Mini-games, such as waste sorting challenges and sustainability quizzes, reinforce learning through hands-on, interactive tasks (Figure 3).
Emphasising co-benefits: The game has a special focus on exemplifying non-energy related co-benefits that occupants receive from retrofit, including financial savings, health, comfort and sustainable ‘mindsets’.
Procedural systems and AI: Non-player characters (NPCs) have needs (for example, comfort, cleanliness, daily schedule, and entertainment) that change dynamically. These systems introduce complexity and decision-making opportunities, aligning with real-world sustainability challenges.
These systems interact to create an engaging emergent game environment that closely replicates real life (Figure 4). Conditions are currently set to represent the weather in the United Kingdom; however, they have been designed so international demand can easily be accommodated by changing the values of the dynamic weather and calendar, thereby localising the player experience. The systems in Project CHANGE were designed for scaling, allowing multiple dwellings to be mimicked, while also supporting multiplayer mode on a single personal computer. The game simulates the real-life financial, logistical, informational, and behavioural barriers that end users may face when choosing retrofit measures, as well as the co-benefits, pay-back period, and individual practice norms to provide customised decision-making support.
Figure 3.
Mindset levels interface. © Max White.
Game interface screen with a stylised globe at the centre representing global impact or sustainability. Circular icons around the globe show clothing, a light bulb, coins, a house, and settings, suggesting choices related to consumption, energy use, finances, housing, and game options.
Figure 4.
System flowchart: hierarchy and logical connections of subsystems in CHANGE game design. © Max White.
Flowchart diagram of a time and calendar system for a simulation game. At the top, the time and calendar system connects to event, weather, and temperature systems. These feed into a central household controller containing electric meter, thermostat, NPCs, comfort, and schedule. To the left, shop and retrofit options influence a budget system linked to the household controller. To the right, mindset and mini-games connect to the household controller. At the bottom, a player interface links to all components, indicating user interaction.
Iterative prototype testing and evaluation
Project CHANGE was evaluated through iterative prototype testing both internally and externally.
Internal testing
Internal testing provides valuable quality assurance and is crucial for optimising the user interface and experience. The internal testing allowed us to refine the control scheme and ensure cohesion across the different aspects of the game whilst identifying and removing bugs. The internal testing of the game demonstrated versatility regarding compatibility with various hardware set-ups. It was evaluated on a diverse array of personal computers, encompassing mid-range laptops and high-performance gaming desktops. It accommodates various display resolutions, including 1280 × 720 (HD), 1920 × 1080 (Full HD), and 3840 × 2160 (4K UHD). Minor issues arose while configuring external speakers and mice on some computers, but these were quickly resolved by adjustments to configuration settings. Some testers preferred playing the game with a mouse rather than a laptop touchpad.
Systems testing could be extensive due to time elapsing being core to their function. Test scenarios could be created and then builds of the game left running. Once the systems had been refined through this, it became possible for over a decade of in-game time to pass without error. This long-haul testing also allowed the variables and their limits that existed within the games system to be tweaked to improve them. During more active testing, bugs were identified in areas such as the item placement mechanics. There was also refinement to the meta of the game, more up-to-date representations of things like the bins in the rubbish sorting mini-game and more realistic schedules for the NPC family.
External testing
The external testing and evaluation of the game align with user-centred design (UCD) principles, ensuring that the final version meets the needs and expectations of the public. External testing not only enhances the game but also builds anticipation and engagement among some members of the public. This methodology parallels the testing of products and services in other industries that are tested with real users to ensure usability and satisfaction. Project CHANGE was evaluated externally in a small-scale controlled release. In a sub-regional retrofit public engagement event in Bristol, we invited the public to play the game. Data collected included questionnaire survey and informal feedback. Quantitative surveys gathered feedback on gameplay, usability, and educational outcomes, enabling statistical analysis of knowledge retention and player engagement. It also measured changes in participants’ attitudes and intentions toward energy retrofit practices, comparing baseline perceptions with post-game insights to assess behavioural impact. Meanwhile, participants’ gameplay sessions were observed to evaluate decision-making processes, strategy adaptation, and interaction with mechanics. Informal interviews with players provided qualitative insights into their understanding of sustainability concepts and the applicability of the game to real-world behaviours.
Collected data were subjected to both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Observational notes and informal feedback were thematically coded to extract recurring themes, providing a deeper understanding of player experiences and the pedagogical value of the game. There was also a limited amount of informal game testing for quality assurance; these fresh perspectives helped identify design oversights and bugs.
Figure 5.
External testing at Warmer Westbury Homes Fair. © Jill Zhao.
A community exhibition setup inside a hall, where two people stand and sit at a table displaying an interactive computer game about recycling. The screen shows coloured bins against a brick wall backdrop. Printed handouts, headphones, a reusable bottle, and a keyboard are arranged on a teal tablecloth. Behind the table, large flip-chart posters read ‘Project Change’ and pose questions about energy use and gameplay feedback.
The external evaluation was conducted at a retrofit fair (Warmer Westbury Homes Fair, https://suswot.org.uk/using-less/warmer-westbury-homes-fair/) at the Westbury-on-Trym Village Hall (https://wotvillagehall.org/) in Bristol (Figure 5). The fair had a variety of exhibitions from a range of public sectors and businesses. Approximately 215 members of the public attended the fair, among whom 13 people played the game and completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents 31 per cent were aged 18–24, 15 per cent aged 25–34, 15 per cent aged 35–44, 31 per cent aged 45–54, 8 per cent (1 person) aged 65+. The respondents were equally distributed between male and female (54 per cent and 46 per cent, respectively). Of the respondents 46 per cent of them were homeowners, 46 per cent lived in rental properties; 1 person was in transition to becoming a homeowner. Out of the respondents, 38 per cent never played digital games, while 62 per cent had different levels of gaming experience, including 1 frequent player.
To our surprise, the majority (84 per cent) of the respondents rated their awareness of general sustainability issues to be very high (8–10 on a 10-point Likert scale). This might be due to the general sustainability awareness of the region, as well as the people attending the retrofit event being already sustainability minded. A majority found the game user interface (UI) to be easy or somewhat easy (62 per cent), and the game control to be intuitive (84 per cent). Thematic analysis of the qualitative feedback from the survey reflected that the game was successful in being interactive, engaging, and educative. Positive feedback also included the design of the game that includes strategic thinking, planning, and budget. Users appreciated that the game highlighted non-monetary benefits of retrofit—such as health, comfort, and well-being—making the broader value of sustainability tangible. The personal touch of the AI characters, graphic details, and the mini-game feature have been well received. One user commented that:
I liked how the more money I put into the house, the easier the game and the less you had to do because you had smart installations.
Before playing the game, the majority (69 per cent) felt their behaviour had little to no effect on their energy use. After playing the game, 54 per cent felt their behaviour had a lot or a great deal of effect on energy use (increased from 31 per cent) (Figure 6). This is especially encouraging as the majority rated their awareness of sustainability issues to be exceptionally high already. Among them 77 per cent said they would model their own home, (or ‘turn my house into Tamagotchi’) in this game to play as a simulation if given the option.
Figure 6.
Comparison of perceived impact of behaviour over energy use before and after playing the game. © Jill Zhao.
Bar chart comparing perceptions of behaviour affecting energy use before and after a game. ‘A little’ drops from 54% to 31%; ‘A great deal’ rises from 15% to 31%.
Through the survey, we also received valuable feedback for improvement. Of the respondents 15 per cent found the interface to be extremely difficult. This may be due to those respondents not being inducted effectively during the initial introduction or demonstration. Technical design issues, such as the NPCs moving too fast or glitches in mini-games hindering a smooth gaming experience, need to be addressed. A few respondents suggested that the game might be better suited to younger audiences or those already comfortable with digital games. This highlights a potential mismatch between design complexity and user expectations among broader, less digitally fluent demographics. Another comment mentioned that they would like to see an aspect of ‘system changing the game rather than just behaviour change on an individual scale’. This underscores a broader difficulty in sustainability education: the necessity of reconciling individual agency with systemic environment. It is imperative to address both micro (user experience) and macro (systemic representation) levels for future gamified interventions to be engaging and realistic.
Discussion and limitation
Project CHANGE successfully demonstrated that digital gamification can make complex sustainability concepts—particularly those related to home energy use and retrofit—more accessible and engaging for the public. By integrating scenario-based decision-making and visual feedback, the game helped players understand the financial, logistical, and behavioural dimensions of retrofitting. The inclusion of dynamic systems (for example, weather simulation, non-player character needs, financial modelling) supported a holistic, interactive experience.
User feedback from external testing indicated that players appreciated the strategic depth and personalisation of the game, such as managing household energy budgets and interacting with AI-driven characters, and the emphasis on co-benefits of energy retrofit. However, several usability issues emerged, particularly in the UI and onboarding processes. These technical shortcomings underscore the importance of iterative user testing during early development to ensure broad accessibility.
In terms of outcomes, a shift in participants’ perceived agency over their household energy use was observed, even among those who already reported high sustainability awareness. This suggests that simulation-based engagement can be a powerful tool not just for awareness-raising, but also for reinforcing self-efficacy in behaviour change, echoing previous research (Gustafsson et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2024; Abdurahmanovic & Cadenbach 2025). Project CHANGE contributes to increasing end users’ prior knowledge in energy use and retrofit to promote long-term positive behavioural change in low-carbon technologies found in Bobrova et al. (2022). Its approach also aligns with research highlighting the importance of engaging end users early in the energy retrofit process (Baird 2015; Ahmed et al. 2021; Bobrova et al. 2022).
Beyond the specifics of Project CHANGE, several broader lessons emerge. First, while digital games offer scalable and immersive educational experiences, they are not universally accessible. Barriers such as hardware requirements, digital literacy, and personal preferences must be addressed when considering serious games for public engagement (Patagar et al. 2023; Bercaru & Popescu 2024). This includes alternative formats like board games or community-based non-digital simulations, which can reach audiences less comfortable with technology.
Second, serious games must balance entertainment with educational depth. Games that are too didactic may lose engagement, while those too focused on entertainment may fail to convey meaningful learning outcomes. Designing for this balance requires interdisciplinary collaboration early on—between educators, designers, and behavioural scientists—to align narrative, mechanics, and learning goals from the start.
Third, to achieve broader impact, games like Project CHANGE should be embedded within a larger ecosystem of engagement: workshops, community events, or school-based programmes. Gamification should not be viewed as a standalone solution but as one component in a toolkit for systemic sustainability education. Combining education, community-building, and encouraging self-reflection on behaviours and personal values can significantly enhance social housing tenants’ involvement in energy retrofit initiatives (Jansson-Boyd et al. 2017). By making games more inclusive, aligning them with real-world energy challenges, and combining them with broader sustainability education strategies, gamified interventions can more effectively support meaningful resident engagement, foster a sense of agency, and contribute to sustained behavioural and social change in retrofit processes.
It is essential to address some limitations of this research. The constraints of time and resources influenced the design and development of the CHANGE game. It was necessary to prioritise essential features, sacrificing more innovative and optional components. Project constraints required a shortening in the development cycle and restricted time for comprehensive testing, adversely impacting the quality and functionality of the game (for example, not including the option for players to customise the layout of properties.). Furthermore, resource constraints limited the size of the development team, reducing the diversity of skills and experience. Although an innovative project plan was successfully followed, the constraints compelled the project team to reconcile ambition with practicality. This resulted in a game that, while functional, has yet to fully realise its original vision.
The limited number of surveyed participants who played the game and completed the questionnaire (13 in total) imposes constraints on the outcomes of the project. Smaller sample sizes generally exhibit increased variability, potentially compromising the reliability of the results. Moreover, the findings may not accurately reflect the wider population, resulting in a lack of generalisability. The small sample may not encompass the complete spectrum of public opinions. Individual outliers can exert a disproportionate influence on the results, skewing the overall conclusions. Further developments to the game and a larger scale external testing are planned upon future opportunities.
Concluding remarks and future developments
Project CHANGE created a prototype of a digital game to enhance our understanding of the end user’s role in domestic energy use. The game design has utilised multiple theoretical frameworks and selected the most suitable game engine to represent complex information in a simple, engaging, and playful format that the public can understand. The findings from this research demonstrated that gamification is an effective tool in enhancing public understanding of retrofit options and behaviour influences on energy use.
Project CHANGE creates a strong framework for engaging players in sustainable practices by combining real-world-inspired systems and gamification techniques. Its iterative development process, which is guided by user feedback, demonstrates the power of digital games to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and actionable environmental behaviours.
Learning from evaluation and feedback, we have the following plans for future developments of the CHANGE game:
(1)
User-centred design from the start: Early involvement of target user groups could improve accessibility and tailor gameplay to different demographic needs. This includes intuitive UI, developing modular onboarding systems and tutorial options for varying levels of digital familiarity.
(2)
Accessibility planning: Future projects should plan for multiple game formats—digital, board-based, or hybrid—from the outset to broaden inclusivity and reduce technological barriers. Alternative educational pathways, such as interactive community discussions and non-digital resources, should be provided to increase inclusivity.
(3)
Iterative prototyping and co-design: Incorporating structured feedback loops earlier in development (for example, participatory co-design sessions) can help identify interface and content issues before they become embedded.
(4)
Integrated evaluation metrics: Embedding real-time analytics and behavioural metrics into the game design can help monitor learning progress, emotional engagement, and decision-making pathways more systematically, improving both research and refinement. Making feedback loops more immediate and visually intuitive could help users better understand the impact of their choices, strengthening learning and behaviour modelling.
(5)
Systemic contextualisation: Rather than focusing solely on individual behaviour, future iterations should explore how game mechanics can simulate and challenge systemic factors—such as policy, infrastructure, and community-level constraints—thereby expanding the scope of what ‘actionable behaviour’ can mean in a real-world context.
(6)
Smarter system integration: Energy models [such as IES (Integrated Environmental Solutions)] could be incorporated and connected with smart meters, environmental sensors, and IoT objects to track real-time energy use, monitor health and well-being, and simulate different retrofit solutions, to assist with a more informed decision-making process. Health and well-being should be emphasised as core benefits rather than co-benefits.
(7)
Customisability for enhanced engagement: Customisable features such as type of housing, layout, and interior finishes could be incorporated to engage more users and cater for individualised experiences.
Overcoming the weaknesses of serious gaming necessitates acknowledging its potential limitations, including restricted engagement, accessibility concerns, and the difficulty of converting virtual experiences into tangible real-world actions. Integrating Project CHANGE with additional strategies, including best practice from pedagogy, community initiatives, and policy advocacy, can enhance its effectiveness. The integration of these methodologies enabled us to engage a wider audience, promote enhanced comprehension, and stimulate sustainable practices. This systemic approach will improve the efficacy of the game, fostering a more sustainable future by encouraging enduring, significant transformation.
Acknowledgements
Project CHANGE (Curating a Human-centred Approach for net zero: Gamifying Energy-behaviour) has received funding from the University of the West of England via the Centre for Advanced Built Environment Research (CABER) internal research award (2023–2024). The authors would like to thank Dr Nikolaos Ersotelos for his guidance and support. We are grateful to colleagues who suggested features to improve the game and learning experience. Special thanks to Benjamin Kennedy, Azin Allahkhani, Kivanc Guney, and Jame Suriyasenee, who worked on the Energy Efficiency Home game to test ideas of the CHANGE game. The authors would like to thank the UWE students who volunteered at the public engagement event. We also appreciate the valuable contributions of members of the public who played the game and provided insightful feedback.
References
AbdurahmanovicN. & CadenbachA. (2025), ‘Enhancing energy efficiency through user engagement and behaviour change: a review on gamification approaches and serious games in energy systems’, Energy, 334: 137496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.137496
AhmedA., Mateo-GarciaM., ArewaA. & CaratellaK. (2021), ‘Integrated performance optimization of higher education buildings using low-energy renovation process and user engagement’, Energies, 14(5): 1475. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN14051475
BairdG. (2015), ‘Users’ perceptions of sustainable buildings — key findings of recent studies’, Renewable Energy, 73: 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.04.004
BarthS. & de JongM.D.T. (2017), ‘The privacy paradox — investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior — A systematic literature review’, Telematics and Informatics, 34(7): 1038–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013
BercaruV. & PopescuN. (2024), ‘A systematic review of accessibility techniques for online platforms: current trends and challenges’, Applied Sciences, 14(22): 10337. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210337
BobrovaY., PapachristosG. & CooperA. (2022), ‘Process perspective on homeowner energy retrofits: a qualitative metasynthesis’, Energy Policy, 160: 112669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112669
BourazeriA., PittJ. & ArnabS. (2017), ‘Enabling collective awareness of energy use via a social serious game’, EAI Endorsed Transactions on Serious Games, 4(13): https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.27-12-2017.153510
CaponN. (2020), ‘Systems thinking in game design: how complex systems are engineered in games for positive impact’, Games for Change Journal, 12(4): 35–47.
CasalsM., GangolellsM., MacarullaM., ForcadaN., FuertesA. & JonesR.V. (2020), ‘Assessing the effectiveness of gamification in reducing domestic energy consumption: lessons learned from the EnerGAware project’, Energy and Buildings, 210: 109753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109753
CherryC., HopfeC., MacgillivrayB. & PidgeonN. (2015), ‘Media discourses of low carbon housing: the marginalisation of social and behavioural dimensions within the British broadsheet press’, Public Understanding of Science, 24(3): 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513512442
CossuS.M. (2019), Game Development with GameMaker Studio 2: Make Your Own Games with GameMaker Language (London, Apress). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-5010-5
CostinY., O’BrienM. & HoganW. (2024), ‘Gamifying sustainability: leveraging game-based learning to champion sustainable development goals (SDGs): a case study’, European Conference on e-Learning. https://doi.org/10.34190/ecel.23.1.2601.
FellM.J. & SchneidersA. (2020), ‘Make fun of your research’, Nature Energy, 5(8): 552–554. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0623-8
FrankowskiJ. & Tirado HerreroS. (2021), ‘“What is in it for me?” A people-centered account of household energy transition co-benefits in Poland’, Energy Research & Social Science, 71: 101787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101787
GeeJ.P. (2021), ‘Learning and games’, in Situated Learning and Education (New York, Routledge), 49–59.
GeelsF.W., SchwanenT., SorrellS., JenkinsK. & SovacoolB.K. (2018), ‘Reducing energy demand through low carbon innovation: a sociotechnical transitions perspective and thirteen research debates’, Energy Research & Social Science, 40: 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.003
GustafssonA., BångM. & SvahnM. (2009), ‘Gamifying green: gamification and environmental sustainability’, in Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8.
HamariJ., KoivistoJ. & SarsaH. (2014), ‘Does gamification work? — A literature review of empirical studies on gamification’, in 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
HeronM.J., BelfordP.H., ReidH. & CrabbM. (2018), ‘Eighteen months of meeple like us: an exploration into the state of board game accessibility’, The Computer Games Journal, 7: 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40869-018-0056-9
Jansson-BoydC.V., RobisonR.A.V., ClohertyR. & Jimenez-BescosC. (2017), ‘Complementing retrofit with engagement: exploring energy consumption with social housing tenants.’, International Journal of Energy Research, 41(8): 1150–1163. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3698
KalyaniK.K. (2024), ‘The role of technology in education: enhancing learning outcomes and 21st century skills’, International Journal of Scientific Research in Modern Science and Technology, 3: 05–10. https://doi.org/10.59828/ijsrmst.v3i4.199
LiW.T., IuorioO., FangH. & MakM.W.T. (2024), ‘Gamification approaches and assessment methodologies for occupants’ energy behavior change in buildings: a systematic review’, Buildings, 14(6): 1497. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061497
LusambiliA.M., TodA.M., HomerC., AbbottJ., CookeJ. & McdaidK.A. (2011), ‘Keeping warm: social connectedness and technology-a case study of Rotherham, England “Technology and Health in the Elderly”’, The International Journal of Health, Wellness, and Society, 1(3): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.18848/2156-8960/CGP/v01i03/41174
MoraS., GianniF. & DivitiniM. (2020), ‘A gamified approach to engage sustainable user behavior in smart cities’, European Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(3): 377–384.
MorganD.J., MaddockC.A. & MusselwhiteC.B.A. (2024), ‘These are tenants not guinea pigs: barriers and facilitators of retrofit in Wales, United Kingdom’, Energy Research & Social Science, 111: 103462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103462
MortonA., ReevesA., BullR. & PrestonS. (2020), ‘Empowering and engaging European building users for energy efficiency’, Energy Research & Social Science, 70: 101772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101772
MylonasG., AmaxilatisD., PoceroL., MarkelisI., HofstaetterJ. & KoulourisP. (2019), Using an educational IoT lab kit and gamification for energy awareness in European schools. https://doi.org/10.1145/3213818.3213823
NicholsonS. (2020), ‘A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification’, in
ReinerT. & WoodL.C. (eds), Gamification in Education and Business (London, Springer Nature), 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_1
PaganelliF., MylonasG., CuffaroG. & NesiI. (2019), ‘Experiences from using gamification and IoT-based educational tools in high schools towards energy savings’, in Ambient Intelligence (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Cham, Springer) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34255-5_6
PatagarM., BullaS. & NayakA. (2023), ‘The digital divide: access to technology and social inequality’, International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 10(1): 123–145. https://ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR23A3212.pdf
PilkingtonB., RoachR. & PerkinsJ. (2011), ‘Relative benefits of technology and occupant behaviour in moving towards a more energy efficient, sustainable housing paradigm’, Energy Policy, 39(9): 4962–4970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.018
PrestonS., MazharM.U. & BullR. (2020), ‘Citizen engagement for co-creating low carbon smart cities: practical lessons from Nottingham city council in the UK’, Energies, 13(24): 6615. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246615
PutnamT. & BrownD. (2021), ‘Grassroots retrofit: community governance and residential energy transitions in the United Kingdom’, Energy Research & Social Science, 78: 102102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102102
RoettlJ. & TerlutterR. (2018), ‘The same video game in 2D, 3D or virtual reality — How does technology impact game evaluation and brand placements? PLoS One, 13(7): e0200724. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200724
RudolfM. (2023), Enhancing Sustainability Education: The Impact of Gamification (University of Twente Student Theses).
StaddonS.C., CycilC., GouldenM., LeygueC. & SpenceA. (2016), ‘Intervening to change behaviour and save energy in the workplace: a systematic review of available evidence’, Energy Research & Social Science, 17: 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.03.027
TettehM.O., BoatengE.B., DarkoA. & ChanA.P.C. (2023), ‘What are the general public’s needs, concerns and views about energy efficiency retrofitting of existing building stock? A sentiment analysis of social media data’, Energy and Buildings, 301: 113721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113721
TozerL., MacraeH. & SmitE. (2023), ‘Achieving deep-energy retrofits for households in energy poverty’, Buildings and Cities, 4(1): 258–273. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.304
UKGBC (Uk Green Building Council) (n.d.). Home Retrofit | UKGBC. https://ukgbc.org/our-work/home-retrofit/ (Accessed 23 April 2026).
YangH., HuZ. & LiD. (2024), ‘Exploring the effect of green gamification on users’ low-carbon awareness: A cognitive dissonance perspective’, Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(7): 1446–1470. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2214632
ZhaoJ. (2023), ‘Implementing net zero affordable housing — towards a human-centred approach’, Journal of the British Academy, 11(4): 009. https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/011s4.009
Cite
DOI: 10.5871/jba/014.a16
Published on: 10 June 2026
Volume: 14
Issue: Issue 2
Article view count: 5
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, M., Zhao, J. & Phillips, N. (2026), ‘Play to CHANGE: preliminary findings on using gamification to support a low-carbon transition’, Journal of the British Academy, 14(2): a16 https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/014.a16Crossref
Dimensions
Altmetric
Article metrics
View count: 5
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