Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:38:22.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Using Simulation Games to Teach Ecosystem Service Synergies and Trade-offs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2014

Gregory M. Verutes  and
Amy Rosenthal
Gregory M. Verutes*
Affiliation:
Training Program Manager and GIS Specialist, Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC. Senior Specialist, Science–Policy Interface, Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.
Amy Rosenthal
Affiliation:
Training Program Manager and GIS Specialist, Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC. Senior Specialist, Science–Policy Interface, Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.
*
Address correspondence to: Gregory M. Verutes, Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, 317 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305; (phone) 516-987-1492; (fax) 650-725-1783; (e-mail) [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Natural capital is of critical importance for biodiversity and people’s well-being. Studies indicate that understanding the connection between environmental health and human benefit (i.e., ecosystem services) can promote conservation-friendly decisions; however, many people don’t recognize the benefits they derive from nature, nor the way their decisions affect those benefits—and the consequences for our communities and economy. One method we have tested for educating people about ecosystem services and valuation is game-based learning. To help people understand their potential impact on ecosystem services, and how alternative decisions can have better or worse outcomes for people and nature, we created two social simulation games collectively called Tradeoff! Through an iterative design process and pilot testing in a number of locations with a variety of audiences, we have developed a set of learning principles for educational ecosystem service games.

Environmental Practice 00: 1–11 (2014)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 194 - 204
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bellotti, F., Kapralos, B., Lee, K., Moreno-Ger, P., and Berta, R.. 2013. Assessment in and of Serious Games: An Overview [Review Article]. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, volume 2013, 11 pp. Available at http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahci/2013/136864/.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R.S., Diaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H.M., Perrings, C., Reid, W.V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R.J., and Whyte, A.. 2009. Science for Managing Ecosystem Services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106(5):1305–1312.Google Scholar
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., and Mitchell, R.B.. 2003. Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100(14):8086–8091.Google Scholar
Clarke, C., Canto, M., and Rosado, S.. 2013. Belize Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan. Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI), Belize City, 227 pp. Available at http://www.coastalzonebelize.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/DRAFT%20BELIZE%20Integrated%20Coastal%20Zone%20Management%20Plan%20_MAY%2020.pdf.Google Scholar
Cordova, D., and Lepper, M.. 1996. Intrinsic Motivation and the Process of Learning: Beneficial Effects of Contextualization, Personalization, and Choice. Journal of Educational Psychology 88:715–730.Google Scholar
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., and Shallenberger, R.. 2009. Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(1):21–28.Google Scholar
De Freitas, S.I. 2006. Using Games and Simulations for Supporting Learning. Learning, Media and Technology 31(4):343–358.Google Scholar
De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., and Willemen, L.. 2010. Challenges in Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services and Values in Landscape Planning, Management and Decision Making. Ecological Complexity 7(3):260–272.Google Scholar
Dieleman, H., and Huisingh, D.. 2006. Games by which to Learn and Teach about Sustainable Development: Exploring the Relevance of Games and Experiential Learning for Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Productction 14(9):837–847.Google Scholar
Foster, A. 2008. Games and Motivation to Learn Science: Personal Identity, Applicability, Relevance and Meaningfulness. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 19(4):597–614.Google Scholar
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., and Driskell, J.E.. 2002. Games, Motivation, and Learning: A Research and Practice Model. Simulation & Gaming 33(4):441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haklay, M., and Tobón, C.. 2003. Usability Evaluation and PPGIS: Towards a User-Centred Design Approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17(6):577–592.Google Scholar
Hopwood, J.L., Flowers, S.K., Seidler, K.J., and Hopwood, E.L.. 2013. Race to Displace: A Game to Model the Effects of Invasive Species on Plant Communities. American Biology Teacher 75(3):194–201.Google Scholar
Jankowski, P., Robischon, S., Tuthill, D., Nyerges, T., and Ramsey, K.. 2006. Design Considerations and Evaluation of a Collaborative, Spatio-temporal Decision Support System. Transactions in GIS 10(3):335–354.Google Scholar
Kiili, K. 2007. Foundation for Problem-Based Gaming. British Journal of Educational Technology 38(3):394–404.Google Scholar
Lawson, G. 2003. Ecological Landscape Planning: A Gaming Approach in Education. Landscape Research 28(2):217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, T.W. 1981. Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction. Cognitive Science 5(4):333–369.Google Scholar
Malone, T.W., and Lepper, M.R.. 1987. Making Learning Fun: A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivations for Learning. In Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, Volume 3: Conative and Affective Process Analyses, R.E. Snow and M.J. Farr, eds. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 223–253.Google Scholar
McIntyre, S. 2003. The Landscape Game: A Learning Tool Demonstrating Landscape Design Principles. Ecological Management & Restoration 4(2):103–109.Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, 137 pp. Available at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.Google Scholar
O’Neil, H.F., Wainess, R., and Baker, E.L.. 2005. Classification of Learning Outcomes: Evidence from the Computer Games Literature. Curriculum Journal 16(4):455–474.Google Scholar
Pivec, M., and Dziabenko, O.. 2004. Game-Based Learning in Universities and Lifelong Learning: “UniGame: Social Skills and Knowledge Training” Game Concept. Journal of Universal Computer Science 10(1):14–26.Google Scholar
Rajabu, K.R.M. 2007. Use and Impacts of the River Basin Game in Implementing Integrated Water Resource Management in Mkoji Sub-catchment in Tanzania. Agricultural Water Management 94(1–3):63–72.Google Scholar
Randel, J.M., Morris, B.A., Wetzel, C.D., and Whitehill, B.V.. 1992. The Effectiveness of Games for Educational Purposes: A Review of Recent Research. Simulation & Gaming 23(3):261–276.Google Scholar
Ricci, K., Salas, E., and Cannon-Bowers, J.A.. 1996. Do Computer-Based Games Facilitate Knowledge Acquisition and Retention? Military Psychology 8(4):295–307.Google Scholar
Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A.D., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., Wood, S., and Bernhardt, J.. 2013. Notes from the Field: Lessons Learned from Using Ecosystem Service Approaches to Inform Real-World Decisions. Ecological Economics. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009.Google Scholar
Schulte, L., Donahey, J., Gran, L., Isenhart, T., and Tyndall, J.. 2010. People in Ecosystems/Watershed Integration: A Dynamic Watershed Tool for Linking Agroecosystem Outputs to Land Use and Land Cover. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 65(2):33A–36A.Google Scholar
TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature—A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. Progress Press, Malta, 36 pp. Available at http://www.unep.org/pdf/LinkClick.pdf.Google Scholar
Ulrich, M. 1997. Games/Simulations about Environmental Issues: Existing Tools and Underlying Concepts. In Gaming/Simulation for Policy Development and Organizational Change: Proceedings of the 28th Simulation and Gaming Association, J. Geurts, C. Joldersma, and E. Roelofs, eds. 28th Annual International Conference of the International Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA), July 1997, Tilburg, The Netherlands, 301–311. Available at http://www.ucs.ch/service/download/docs/articlesimgamesenvissues.pdf.Google Scholar
Vogel, J.J., Vogel, D.S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C.A., Muse, K., and Wright, M.. 2006. Computer Gaming and Interactive Simulations for Learning: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research 34(3):229–243.Google Scholar
Webb, T.P., Simpson, D., Denson, S., and Duthie, E. Jr. 2012. Gaming Used as an Informal Instructional Technique: Effects on Learner Knowledge and Satisfaction. Journal of Surgical Education 69(3):330–334.Google Scholar
Wilson, K.A., Bedwell, W.L., Lazzara, E.H., Salas, E., Burke, C.S., Estock, J.L., Orvis, K.L., and Conkey, C.. 2009. Relationships between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes Review and Research Proposals. Simulation & Gaming 40(2):217–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar