the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How to communicate and educate more effectively on natural risk issues to improve disaster risk management through serious games
Abstract. This study focuses on exploring the potential of serious games for improving disaster risk management. The research involves methodological triangulation, analysing and comparing data from content analysis of serious games (6 digital games: 3 mobile apps and 3 online games), focus groups with experts and literature review. The results show that only online games fulfil the fundamental narrative indicated by the experts, with mobile apps focusing their gameplay more on interaction. Such interaction could enhance the playful aspect of the game and thus increase the desire to play; thus, the educational aspect of online games is much higher. Few online games work on issues of multiculturalism, diversity and gender. This paper provides a list of recommended features of disaster risk management games that we have categorised into three dimensions: a) character, b) information and message tone and c) narrative dynamics, reward systems and feedback. The results can be of great help to teachers and game designers in improving citizens' knowledge of disaster risk management.
- Preprint
(928 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-994', Miguel Angel Trejo Rangel, 22 Apr 2024
Dear authors,
Thank you for putting together this piece of paper. I found the topic very interesting and has large potential to be investigated to contribute to the DRM field. It is definitely an interesting topic to research considering that more and more serious games are emerging to enhance DRM.
I have some comments you can consider to improve the manuscript since I believe it can be publishable if adjustments are considered. I will go by section to make my suggestions clear enough.
The abstract and introduction sections are clear and well-presented, but I would suggest that in the introduction you expand on any other participatory approaches that have been reported in the literature to better frame why the research team decided to focus on serious gaming. As it is framed so far you exclude other approaches which are also important such as participatory mapping, workshops, hackathons or any other in-person and online methods to engage different stakeholders.
I liked how you explained serious gamin and their importance in the DRR in the theoretical framework, I think that is important considering that they have been used for some time already, however, you put together good references about them.
In the material and methods section, the section starts mentioning that it is qualitative research, however, when the results are presented, there are quantitative findings based on the questionnaires that were applied. I rather find this research as a mixed-method approach that complements findings from different methods.
For the content analysis, it is mentioned that the authors designed an instrument of analysis and evaluation. However, the results mostly focus on analysis and it is not very clear to me how it complements the focus group approach which for me should be a “focus group questionnaire”.
For the focus group (questionnaire), it is also not very clear how the MAXQDA software was used for analysing this method. I would expect the platform to be used in the content analysis section and not here. I know it is mentioned in the results, but I missed the implementation of a different method in the focus group section to gather participants' inputs. For instance, interviews or even an online workshop or so. I am concerned about conducting a questionnaire with that number of participants (8 video game experts and 14 natural hazard experts), which was not clear until I went through the results and figured it out.
I recognised that was very interesting to see how you selected the participants, but would be interesting to better understand how you approached them to answer the questionnaire.
In the results section, it is not a very friendly reader to keep mentioning tables that are pages ahead of the point you are reading. It is time-consuming and you get lost while you keep going to the table and coming back to the point where you stop reading. I strongly suggest that you try to condense the results of tables B1 to B6 into one figure. I am imagining a general description of these sections, followed by a figure, design, scheme, or something creative to picture what was found, and if the reader wants to get more details, can go to the detailed tables. Please allow yourself to think about how you would like to see that in a figure that represents the important information you have gathered already. I find this section very disconnected, and it does not give an overall picture of what was found. Also, I suggest to bring the discussions to the results section. Then, results can be compared to what has been reported in the literature. Then, you can discuss the type of related hazard, and lack of inclusivity due to the predominant languages (especially English) even when the public which could benefit from using these games does not use them, and other aspects.
Regarding the focus group results, I would try to merge both groups that participated and bring only key elements that contribute to answering your question “What are the educational and communicative elements or characteristics that serious games should have to improve DRM?”. You may notice that not all the answers from the questionnaire provide key information and you may need to prioritise what helps to respond to the question. If you decide to present the previous section (content analysis) on how serious games are in a more condensed way, you could take advantage of that and highlight how they “should improve” with these findings. I can see that the data collected in the content analysis could help to build a current picture and the information collected in questionnaires would be the transformed version of that.
Some charts and tables look a bit unnecessary since they do not say so much and take up a large space in the document. Please reconsider which of them are useful and how would be a better way to present more connected results where discussion can be included. I do see that you have collected valuable information, I just do not get how the results are organised, I believe this section should be better presented.
I suggest leaving the conclusions as a separate section without merging it with the discussions since I see a lot more potential to include discussions in the results section.
Please let me know if something is unclear, I am happy to clarify as much as possible.
Best regards,
The reviewer.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-994-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-994', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Jul 2024
General comments
This paper examines the potential benefits of serious games for enhancing disaster risk management. The researchers employed a methodological triangulation approach, which involved content analysis, focus group discussions with experts and literature review. The findings show that online games are more successful in meeting experts' narrative criteria and have higher educational value, while mobile apps focus more on interaction, increasing engagement but lacking educational depth. The study also highlights a lack of attention to multiculturalism, diversity, and gender issues.
Thank you for your manuscript. The research questions posed are interesting and the research, per se, is relevant to the research area. However, the paper’s structure and the presentation of the information lack clarity and the grammar used is not at a level for publication.
- The grammar in the paper is seriously lacking throughout major parts of the paper. Therefore, please have the paper be proofread by a native speaker.
- The introduction would benefit from a clearer delineation of the research gap(s) and how this paper specifically is trying to answer it/them.
- I would appreciate it if the research questions was mentioned in the introduction and then specifically taken up again in the discussion part and answered in more detail
- Explain in more detail how the information in the results section were obtained. Adding the questionnaire to the appendix could be helpful to remedy that and help readers understand what the questionnaire looked like.
- consider if all of the figures presented in the results section are actually necessary or if the information presented in them could be condensed into one or two figure(s). Also rethink how the information in the tables is presented (see specific comment below)
- Some parts of the results section rather belongs to the discussion and conclusion chapter, i.e. leave all interpretation of the results to the discussion. Some, but by far not all, of the instances are commented on in the specific comments (see specific comment below)
- I would separate the discussion and conclusion section so as to make it more reader-friendly
- the paper could benefit from a clearer use of terminology = unify the use of i.e. natural risks, natural hazards, natural hazards-related disaster
- refrain from using evaluating language if it is not language used by the experts (and if the latter, use direct quotes)
Specific comments:
Section 2 (Theoretical framework):
Line 99: add percentage for the prevalence of storms
Section 3 (Materials and methods):
Line 135: the age range is unclear – if the game is geared at young people without giving an age upper limit, it should rather be argued that it is for young and adult people
Line 137: it would be helpful for the reader to know on the basis of which criteria this selection was made
Line 140ff: describe in more detail what the content analysis looked like with games as objects of the study. How was content extracted from the games, which aspects of the structure of the games were analyzed (i.e. visual, audio, text, etc.) and how. How did you deal with the interactive aspect of the games, i.e. different outcomes of the games depending on the players’ decisions, etc.?
Line 144: “First” is not needed if there are no other arguments listed (“second”, “third”)
Line 147: fix reference (only year in brackets)
Line 152: close bracket
Lines 163-165: Rewrite accordingly: This study involved individuals with at least 5 years of professional or experiential knowledge of the research topic, constituting an informed panel and thereby justifying the use of the title "experts" (Mullen, 2003).
Line 170: include an explanation of how these participants are experts in natural hazards, i.e. are they researchers, practitioners, stakeholders…
Line 179: add citation for MAXQDA program. Also, it is unclear what the program was used for.
Section 4 – Results:
Clarify how this information was obtained. Were the following questions posed as open questions, was there a selection of answers given and could experts add own ideas, …? As mentioned above, adding the appendix to the paper helps readers understand how this information was elicited. This applies to all other questions in the following tables in the result section.
Rethink the use of figures (see comment above) and consider condensing some figures into one. Also, the tables do not present information in a very reader-friendly way, consider rephrasing the items shown so it is more clear to the readers what they mean.
Line 188: To me, there seems to be no point in highlighting Hungarian and Turkish as available languages for the paper at hand, so delete and rather than pointing out specific languages maybe state the number of languages in which the game is available
Line 221: add why the term “natural risk” in particular is one you looked out for. Also I would, again, argue that this is content for the discussion section of the paper
Line 221-222: explain in more detail – why is this an interesting result and what constitutes a complex concept (consider also giving examples). Again, this would be content for the discussion section.
Line 231: Consider moving this whole subsection (4.1.4) to the beginning of the chapter. Painting a picture of the games’ setup could help readers in getting an understanding of the games and differentiating them better
Line 233: use “in multi-player mode” instead of “collective way”
Line 238: make the link clearer as to why the online games offer educational advantages over the mobile ones. What characterizes the mobile ones in comparison?
Line 243: Clarify what you mean by “the other games might also be played in an hour”
Line 245: Clarify what the difference is between positive feedback and a reward system
Line 250: Explain what Bloom’s Taxonomy is and how this is relevant here
Line 258f: Clarify if only online games dealt with these dimensions
Line 266ff/Table 1: clarify what “Always” means in “reward systems” section, especially since this is not referred to in the text. Also consider renaming this item as it is too unspecific
Line 266ff/Table 1: clarify why progress and motivation is handled as one category. Consider renaming the third category to “motivate” in order to make terminology uniform (i.e. all verb infinitives or the gerund). Do this for the entire table.
Line 266ff/Table 1: the last 3 subcategories in the “duration” section are confusing to me as their connection to the theme of duration only makes sense after reading the text. This, to me, raises the question if the information should rather be presented in an answer-like style, i.e. “game should not take more than an hour” “game should take up to several hours”, “game length can be variable if narrative is employed”, etc. Such rephrasing could help readers understand the subcategories better.
Line 280: 46% does not appear in the table. Check if numbers in text and table align.
Line 291: Figure 1 is not referred to in the text and, even if it were, seems unnecessary – information depicted does not need its own figure
Line 293: “All of the experts agree” does not fit to the number in the cited figure (figure only shows 62% for curiosity).
Lines 295ff: the last to sentences of the paragraph seem to repeat the same information.
Line 301: Unsure whether this conclusion can be drawn from merely 7% and 21% of responses.
Line 302f: This is an interpretation, move this part to the discussion section.
Table 2: there is a typo in “multiculturalis”
Table 2: change phrasing of “normal person” – avoid evaluative language if it is not language explicitly used by the experts. If that were the case, use direct quotes
Figure 5: figure is cut off on the left
Line 363f: cut “wonderful” and “great” - avoid evaluative language if it is not language explicitly used by the experts. If that were the case, use direct quotes
Section 5 (discussion and conclusion):
Move all interpretation of the obtained data currently found in the results section here and consider splitting discussion and conclusion into two separate chapters
Lines 402ff: rephrase this sentence as it is not clear which of the aspects named are those of “secondary presence”
Section 6 (limits and recommendation for future studies):
This section requires more detail and clarity, i.e. what aspects of the methodological approach of triangulation helps in preventing a subjective interpretation of the results? Clarify what you mean by “seeking consensus”. Give more detailed examples of aspects to be studies for future research.
Appendix:
Table B3 – Disaster Master/global history: rearrange this paragraph, moving the last sentence to the front (“the overarching framework …”)
Table B3 – Earthquake Relief Rescue+/Representation of character: cut out “but in a very impersonal manner” – avoid evaluating language
Table B6 – Competencies: include a footnote explaining the abbreviations
Table B6 – Learning curve: consider replacing “learning curve” with “level of difficulty”
Table B6 – Accessibility: Explain what is meant by accessibility
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-994-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
475 | 67 | 19 | 561 | 13 | 11 |
- HTML: 475
- PDF: 67
- XML: 19
- Total: 561
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1