the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 11 Feb 2025
Thirsty Earth: A Game-Based Approach to Interdisciplinary Water Resources Education
Abstract. The sustainable management of water resources requires cooperative institutions, whose development is rarely included in often overloaded engineering education curricula. To address this gap, we developed Thirsty Earth, an open-access online multi-player game designed to introduce key concepts in water governance through experiential learning. The game can be integrated into standard water management and hydrology classes as part of interactive teaching modules. In Thirsty Earth, students assume the roles of farmers in rural communities, making annual decisions about crop selection and irrigation methods to maximize agricultural profits under uncertain climate conditions. Through gameplay, they encounter critical trade-offs associated with environmental uncertainty, cooperation over shared infrastructure, and the depletion of common-pool water resources, which are central to contemporary water management. Students can address these issues by purchasing and sharing reliable information on resource use and crafting institutional rules to regulate behavior. The game’s dual versions, which include a simplified spreadsheet-based implementation and an advanced web-based interface, offer flexibility to promote active learning in diverse educational contexts.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(6375 KB)
-
Supplement
(337 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6375 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(337 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-330', Wim Douven, 06 Mar 2025
I enjoyed reading the paper. It is a very interesting contribution to the literature on serious games and the role they can play in strengthening (students') skills for tackling social and environmental challenges, in particular water resources management. It provides an in-depth overview of serious games research to date, and contributes to the knowledge with the concepts and application of the interdisciplinary game Thirsty Earth, with more focus on designing solutions, which, as shown, can be used in different learning environments.
I have three comments, questions.
- The game is presented as an interdisciplinary game and indeed uses knowledge and insights in the field of technology, natural sciences and social sciences in a very interesting way. I wondered to what extent the design and implementation of the game was also an interdisciplinary effort, involving e.g. social science or public administration researchers. Looking at the authors' connections, they appear to have mainly scientific, technological and engineering backgrounds. Is that indeed the case? Have also teachers or researchers from social or public administration been involved? And what are your experiences working on a game like this in a more or less disciplinary or interdisciplinary team? What would be recommendations for others wanting to use the game in education?
- In the concluding section you talk about learning from the different game runs over the years (7 years) and the effectiveness of the game in achieving learning objectives. You do mention that no formal evaluation has taken place (line 386), so I understand that a quantitative substantiation is not possible. But would it be possible to add some qualitative data, e.g. in the form of quotes based on the reflection sessions (step 7 of the game), which would provide more insight into the effectiveness of the game according to the students, and support your conclusions
- One final note. The game has been developed for STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) students, actually it would also be interesting if mixed disciplinary groups of students played the game (as they are also expected to work together in real life), also to see if that would lead to different outcomes and discussions. I do realize that this may be more difficult to organize.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-RC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Marc F. Muller, 08 Apr 2025
Replied to under AC1 (sorry)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Marc F. Muller, 08 Apr 2025
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-330', Marc F. Muller, 13 Mar 2025
We are grateful to Dr. Douven for reading our paper and for his positive feedback. We hope our responses and proposed modifications satisfactorily address his comments.
Regarding your first comment on interdisciplinary aspects of Thirsty Earth: Although social scientists and public policy scholars were not explicitly involved in the game’s original design, I (Muller) consider myself an interdisciplinary water scientist, with research focusing on the coupled interactions between humans and water systems. My work on common-pool resource dilemmas in shared groundwater —shaped by collaboration with water scholars across various disciplines—influenced many of the game’s core concepts. That being said, Thirsty Earth was indeed initially developed for an engineering course to introduce students to water-resource policy. It builds on technical topics familiar to STEM students (e.g., groundwater flow, weather uncertainty, and water balance) and integrates socio-economic and institutional elements over time. However, the game has also been implemented in an interdisciplinary minor on sustainability that was open to non-engineering students (primarily from political science and business/management), who found the game both accessible and beneficial. In fact, having a heterogeneous mix of participants led to more robust debates, particularly concerning institutional design, and enhanced the educational experience. For educators interested in using Thirsty Earth, our recommendation is to implement it in an interdisciplinary context whenever possible, allowing students from diverse backgrounds to share and learn from one another’s expertise. Another possibly valuable application is within social science curricula, where the game can illustrate how environmental processes and constraints shape governance challenges and institutional design. We will expand Section 5 of the updated manuscript to discuss these points.
Regarding your second comment on student feedback: We agree that including qualitative data would enhance our discussion of the game’s effectiveness. We will add representative quotes from the student reflections conducted during the debriefing sessions (step 7 of the game) in the Supplementary Materials of the revised paper. We will also reference these reflections in Section 6, where we discuss educational outcomes.
Regarding your third comment, we fully agree that an interdisciplinary educational setting is ideal. As noted in our response to your first comment, we have already observed that a mix of STEM and non-STEM students significantly enhances the educational quality of Thirsty Earth. Participants with diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise bring a variety of perspectives to the table, resulting in more nuanced discussions and more effective engagement in institutional design. Although organizing an interdisciplinary group may pose additional logistical challenges, our experience suggests that the educational benefits are well worth the effort. We will expand Section 5 in our revised paper to discuss these observations.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Wim Douven, 17 Mar 2025
Thanks Marc for your extensive feed-back. I understand not all comments can be addressed in the paper, and much look forward to read your updated version. Best, Wim
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-RC2 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Marc F. Muller, 08 Apr 2025
Thanks Wim!
marc
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Marc F. Muller, 08 Apr 2025
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Wim Douven, 17 Mar 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-330', RJ den Haan, 01 Apr 2025
Thank you for the manuscript, which I read with interest. You focus on Thirsty Earth as an educational game to – in my words – combine governing common-pool resources with enabling players to design tools to address it. You present relevant background to both and how those translate to the game (versions) and its mechanisms. In the paper, you further present how it is used in education currently.
I have four main comments that I am wondering about and/or that I think could improve the manuscript:
What I miss in the introduction is a clear (research) aim. You now present sort of a need that games could fulfill and a knowledge gap on games to – in my words – teach students how to design solutions around tragedy of the commons in common resource pool management, here exemplified in irrigation water use. You also present Thirsty Earth and state how it distinguishes/extends previous games, but although the paper is submitted as education and communication, I would expect there to be some research included in the paper. I would propose that you make this explicit in the introduction. I write the following before reading on and I am now wondering if the paper is going to more game design oriented (what are ways to design a game to …), game use/applicability oriented (to what extent can the game be used in education to …), or game evaluation oriented (to what extent do players learn about …). I would argue that the reader should not be left wondering.
Having read the full manuscript, I am still left wondering a bit on the research. From the above examples, it could still be the game design focus, but also the game use/applicability focus. You do mention in the conclusion (sidenote: which is also a bit odd to only come up in the conclusion section) some results/insights from using the game, like patterns in student reflections and gameplay outcomes. After reading the manuscript I also see a comment of Wim Douven, suggested to perhaps include some qualitative data. I very much support that comment and would propose to see this and the above comment in line with Wim’s comment.
As a designer, I am wondering what you rationale was to design a web-based game. As you indicate in the manuscript (e.g. “It also assumes a single-shot game with no communication or coordination between the players, which is unrealistic”), you need a game that supports some form of (direct) communication. How and to what extent is that supported in your web-based approach? Related: Is the game used in a remote or face-to-face (or both) setting? Or alternatively, how did you use it/how would you recommend using it? On this, the part that is clear to me is the access to partial information, as a game mechanic, but I would suggest to add more specifics on how the game is (meant to be) played from a player perspective. What players can do is included, the setting of how it is played – beyond integration in both long and short teaching modules – is not. E.g. is it played in-class (physically) or not (or what do you recommend)? What implications does/would that have?
In the introduction you write: “First, it emphasizes accessibility and playability. The full version (v1) of the game leverages a specialized multi-player game engine (boardgame.io) to deliver attractive 2D graphics and improved game flow, while the light version (v0) of the game is implemented entirely in Google Sheets and Forms, ensuring ease of adoption with minimal learning requirements for instructors.” I am wondering about what you mean with accessibility and playability and how that relates to the follow-up sentence. Playability would not be my initial association with Google Sheets and Forms. Since you present this as a distinguishing factor from predecessors, I would propose that you be more specific on the game’s contribution over previous work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-RC3 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Marc F. Muller, 02 Apr 2025
We are grateful to Dr. Den Haan for their thoughtful and constructive feedback, and for engaging with our manuscript. Below, we respond to each of the four points raised, and we hope that our clarifications and planned revisions address the concerns and suggestions provided.
- Thank you for your comment. We agree that the introduction would benefit from a clearer articulation of the paper’s aim and orientation. To clarify: this is primarily a pedagogical contribution, rather than a research study. As such, the paper does not present a formal research aim, question, or hypothesis. Instead, our goal is to describe Thirsty Earth, a new educational tool developed to address a specific gap in teaching about the design of solutions to common pool resource challenges, using irrigation as a key example. The focus is on the design rationale of the game and its potential use in interdisciplinary learning contexts. As you helpfully point out, game-focused papers can emphasize different aspects (such as design, use, or evaluation) and our intention is to contribute primarily along the first two lines. We will revise the introduction to make this focus more explicit at the onset and to clarify that the paper does not aim to test a research hypothesis but rather to document and share a new teaching tool that responds to a specific educational need.
- Thank you for this helpful observation. We intentionally included the informal insights from student gameplay and reflections in the conclusion to signal clearly that these are not presented as formal research findings, but rather as anecdotal observations that emerged during the implementation of the game in teaching settings. Our aim was to avoid creating the impression that the paper is based on a structured research design or testing a formal hypothesis. That said, we agree with both your comment and Wim Douven’s suggestion that adding more qualitative detail could enrich the paper and provide valuable context for readers interested in how the game has been used in practice. In the revised manuscript, we will incorporate additional qualitative examples of student feedback and gameplay experiences, which will still be discussed in Section 6. We will also clarify in the introduction that these are shared as illustrative outcomes rather than as part of a systematic evaluation. This should help align expectations and make the pedagogical intent of the paper more transparent from the outset.
- Thank you for your comment. We agree that the manuscript would benefit from more detail on how the game is actually played in practice (beyond the core mechanics and curricular integration) and will add a “Game Logistics” subsection to Section 5 (Teaching Applications) to address this. In response to your specific points: the shift to a web-based format was primarily driven by the transition to remote teaching during the pandemic. We initially created a simple Google Sheets-based version (v0) and later developed a dedicated web-based version (v1) to offer a more playful interface and expanded functionality, including multiple water sources inspired by Seibert’s Irrigania game. Regarding communication: while the reference to a “single-shot game with no communication” critiques the limitations of traditional theoretical models, Thirsty Earth is intentionally designed to foster communication and institutional design. In the full version (v1), this is supported by a built-in chat interface that allows players to communicate within their village group or across the entire class. In the simpler version (v0), communication takes place via parallel Zoom breakout rooms. The game can also be played in face-to-face settings, where each student accesses the platform on a laptop or smartphone. In-person interaction can enhance the social dynamics but also introduces new forms of coordination that students must navigate. To maintain some realism and allow freeriding behavior to emerge, we typically seat students from different villages apart during gameplay and bring them together during the institutional design phase. We will include these details in the revised manuscript to give readers a clearer sense of how the game is meant to be played and adapted to different teaching environments.
- Thank you for this helpful comment. You are right that the distinction between accessibility and playabilitycould be more clearly articulated, especially since we present this as a key contribution of Thirsty Earth over existing tools. In the revised manuscript, we will clarify that the full version of the game (v1) emphasizes playability, while the light version (v0) emphasizes accessibility. By playability, we refer to the user experience during gameplay—specifically, the ease with which players can engage with the game mechanics, receive real-time feedback, and interact with others. The full version of Thirsty Earth is built using a dedicated multiplayer game engine (boardgame.io), which supports smoother game flow, interactive 2D graphics, and automated management of rounds and player interactions. This contrasts with earlier games like Irrigania or the Groundwater Game, which use custom-built servers with more text-based or numerical interfaces, and with the River Basin Game, which is played physically using paper-based prompts and tokens rather than a digital multiplayer environment. By accessibility, we refer to the ease of adoption by instructors and the minimal technical barriers for both facilitators and players. The light version (v0) is fully implemented using Google Sheets and Forms, which requires no installation or technical setup. The game framework is openly available and can be copied, modified, and shared freely. This stands in contrast to the three comparison games, which typically require access codes or private distribution channels, and often involve steeper learning curves for facilitators unfamiliar with their platforms.
We will revise the referenced sentences to:
“The two versions of Thirsty Earth respectively emphasize playability and accessibility. The full version (v1) of the game prioritizes playability by leveraging a dedicated multiplayer game engine (boardgame.io) that supports interactive 2D graphics, real-time player coordination, and automated game flow, while the light version (v0), implemented entirely in Google Sheets and Forms, emphasizes accessibility by requiring no installation, login, or technical setup, making it easy for instructors to adopt and share."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Marc F. Muller, 02 Apr 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-330', Wim Douven, 06 Mar 2025
I enjoyed reading the paper. It is a very interesting contribution to the literature on serious games and the role they can play in strengthening (students') skills for tackling social and environmental challenges, in particular water resources management. It provides an in-depth overview of serious games research to date, and contributes to the knowledge with the concepts and application of the interdisciplinary game Thirsty Earth, with more focus on designing solutions, which, as shown, can be used in different learning environments.
I have three comments, questions.
- The game is presented as an interdisciplinary game and indeed uses knowledge and insights in the field of technology, natural sciences and social sciences in a very interesting way. I wondered to what extent the design and implementation of the game was also an interdisciplinary effort, involving e.g. social science or public administration researchers. Looking at the authors' connections, they appear to have mainly scientific, technological and engineering backgrounds. Is that indeed the case? Have also teachers or researchers from social or public administration been involved? And what are your experiences working on a game like this in a more or less disciplinary or interdisciplinary team? What would be recommendations for others wanting to use the game in education?
- In the concluding section you talk about learning from the different game runs over the years (7 years) and the effectiveness of the game in achieving learning objectives. You do mention that no formal evaluation has taken place (line 386), so I understand that a quantitative substantiation is not possible. But would it be possible to add some qualitative data, e.g. in the form of quotes based on the reflection sessions (step 7 of the game), which would provide more insight into the effectiveness of the game according to the students, and support your conclusions
- One final note. The game has been developed for STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) students, actually it would also be interesting if mixed disciplinary groups of students played the game (as they are also expected to work together in real life), also to see if that would lead to different outcomes and discussions. I do realize that this may be more difficult to organize.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-RC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Marc F. Muller, 08 Apr 2025
Replied to under AC1 (sorry)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Marc F. Muller, 08 Apr 2025
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-330', Marc F. Muller, 13 Mar 2025
We are grateful to Dr. Douven for reading our paper and for his positive feedback. We hope our responses and proposed modifications satisfactorily address his comments.
Regarding your first comment on interdisciplinary aspects of Thirsty Earth: Although social scientists and public policy scholars were not explicitly involved in the game’s original design, I (Muller) consider myself an interdisciplinary water scientist, with research focusing on the coupled interactions between humans and water systems. My work on common-pool resource dilemmas in shared groundwater —shaped by collaboration with water scholars across various disciplines—influenced many of the game’s core concepts. That being said, Thirsty Earth was indeed initially developed for an engineering course to introduce students to water-resource policy. It builds on technical topics familiar to STEM students (e.g., groundwater flow, weather uncertainty, and water balance) and integrates socio-economic and institutional elements over time. However, the game has also been implemented in an interdisciplinary minor on sustainability that was open to non-engineering students (primarily from political science and business/management), who found the game both accessible and beneficial. In fact, having a heterogeneous mix of participants led to more robust debates, particularly concerning institutional design, and enhanced the educational experience. For educators interested in using Thirsty Earth, our recommendation is to implement it in an interdisciplinary context whenever possible, allowing students from diverse backgrounds to share and learn from one another’s expertise. Another possibly valuable application is within social science curricula, where the game can illustrate how environmental processes and constraints shape governance challenges and institutional design. We will expand Section 5 of the updated manuscript to discuss these points.
Regarding your second comment on student feedback: We agree that including qualitative data would enhance our discussion of the game’s effectiveness. We will add representative quotes from the student reflections conducted during the debriefing sessions (step 7 of the game) in the Supplementary Materials of the revised paper. We will also reference these reflections in Section 6, where we discuss educational outcomes.
Regarding your third comment, we fully agree that an interdisciplinary educational setting is ideal. As noted in our response to your first comment, we have already observed that a mix of STEM and non-STEM students significantly enhances the educational quality of Thirsty Earth. Participants with diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise bring a variety of perspectives to the table, resulting in more nuanced discussions and more effective engagement in institutional design. Although organizing an interdisciplinary group may pose additional logistical challenges, our experience suggests that the educational benefits are well worth the effort. We will expand Section 5 in our revised paper to discuss these observations.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Wim Douven, 17 Mar 2025
Thanks Marc for your extensive feed-back. I understand not all comments can be addressed in the paper, and much look forward to read your updated version. Best, Wim
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-RC2 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Marc F. Muller, 08 Apr 2025
Thanks Wim!
marc
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Marc F. Muller, 08 Apr 2025
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Wim Douven, 17 Mar 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-330', RJ den Haan, 01 Apr 2025
Thank you for the manuscript, which I read with interest. You focus on Thirsty Earth as an educational game to – in my words – combine governing common-pool resources with enabling players to design tools to address it. You present relevant background to both and how those translate to the game (versions) and its mechanisms. In the paper, you further present how it is used in education currently.
I have four main comments that I am wondering about and/or that I think could improve the manuscript:
What I miss in the introduction is a clear (research) aim. You now present sort of a need that games could fulfill and a knowledge gap on games to – in my words – teach students how to design solutions around tragedy of the commons in common resource pool management, here exemplified in irrigation water use. You also present Thirsty Earth and state how it distinguishes/extends previous games, but although the paper is submitted as education and communication, I would expect there to be some research included in the paper. I would propose that you make this explicit in the introduction. I write the following before reading on and I am now wondering if the paper is going to more game design oriented (what are ways to design a game to …), game use/applicability oriented (to what extent can the game be used in education to …), or game evaluation oriented (to what extent do players learn about …). I would argue that the reader should not be left wondering.
Having read the full manuscript, I am still left wondering a bit on the research. From the above examples, it could still be the game design focus, but also the game use/applicability focus. You do mention in the conclusion (sidenote: which is also a bit odd to only come up in the conclusion section) some results/insights from using the game, like patterns in student reflections and gameplay outcomes. After reading the manuscript I also see a comment of Wim Douven, suggested to perhaps include some qualitative data. I very much support that comment and would propose to see this and the above comment in line with Wim’s comment.
As a designer, I am wondering what you rationale was to design a web-based game. As you indicate in the manuscript (e.g. “It also assumes a single-shot game with no communication or coordination between the players, which is unrealistic”), you need a game that supports some form of (direct) communication. How and to what extent is that supported in your web-based approach? Related: Is the game used in a remote or face-to-face (or both) setting? Or alternatively, how did you use it/how would you recommend using it? On this, the part that is clear to me is the access to partial information, as a game mechanic, but I would suggest to add more specifics on how the game is (meant to be) played from a player perspective. What players can do is included, the setting of how it is played – beyond integration in both long and short teaching modules – is not. E.g. is it played in-class (physically) or not (or what do you recommend)? What implications does/would that have?
In the introduction you write: “First, it emphasizes accessibility and playability. The full version (v1) of the game leverages a specialized multi-player game engine (boardgame.io) to deliver attractive 2D graphics and improved game flow, while the light version (v0) of the game is implemented entirely in Google Sheets and Forms, ensuring ease of adoption with minimal learning requirements for instructors.” I am wondering about what you mean with accessibility and playability and how that relates to the follow-up sentence. Playability would not be my initial association with Google Sheets and Forms. Since you present this as a distinguishing factor from predecessors, I would propose that you be more specific on the game’s contribution over previous work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-RC3 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Marc F. Muller, 02 Apr 2025
We are grateful to Dr. Den Haan for their thoughtful and constructive feedback, and for engaging with our manuscript. Below, we respond to each of the four points raised, and we hope that our clarifications and planned revisions address the concerns and suggestions provided.
- Thank you for your comment. We agree that the introduction would benefit from a clearer articulation of the paper’s aim and orientation. To clarify: this is primarily a pedagogical contribution, rather than a research study. As such, the paper does not present a formal research aim, question, or hypothesis. Instead, our goal is to describe Thirsty Earth, a new educational tool developed to address a specific gap in teaching about the design of solutions to common pool resource challenges, using irrigation as a key example. The focus is on the design rationale of the game and its potential use in interdisciplinary learning contexts. As you helpfully point out, game-focused papers can emphasize different aspects (such as design, use, or evaluation) and our intention is to contribute primarily along the first two lines. We will revise the introduction to make this focus more explicit at the onset and to clarify that the paper does not aim to test a research hypothesis but rather to document and share a new teaching tool that responds to a specific educational need.
- Thank you for this helpful observation. We intentionally included the informal insights from student gameplay and reflections in the conclusion to signal clearly that these are not presented as formal research findings, but rather as anecdotal observations that emerged during the implementation of the game in teaching settings. Our aim was to avoid creating the impression that the paper is based on a structured research design or testing a formal hypothesis. That said, we agree with both your comment and Wim Douven’s suggestion that adding more qualitative detail could enrich the paper and provide valuable context for readers interested in how the game has been used in practice. In the revised manuscript, we will incorporate additional qualitative examples of student feedback and gameplay experiences, which will still be discussed in Section 6. We will also clarify in the introduction that these are shared as illustrative outcomes rather than as part of a systematic evaluation. This should help align expectations and make the pedagogical intent of the paper more transparent from the outset.
- Thank you for your comment. We agree that the manuscript would benefit from more detail on how the game is actually played in practice (beyond the core mechanics and curricular integration) and will add a “Game Logistics” subsection to Section 5 (Teaching Applications) to address this. In response to your specific points: the shift to a web-based format was primarily driven by the transition to remote teaching during the pandemic. We initially created a simple Google Sheets-based version (v0) and later developed a dedicated web-based version (v1) to offer a more playful interface and expanded functionality, including multiple water sources inspired by Seibert’s Irrigania game. Regarding communication: while the reference to a “single-shot game with no communication” critiques the limitations of traditional theoretical models, Thirsty Earth is intentionally designed to foster communication and institutional design. In the full version (v1), this is supported by a built-in chat interface that allows players to communicate within their village group or across the entire class. In the simpler version (v0), communication takes place via parallel Zoom breakout rooms. The game can also be played in face-to-face settings, where each student accesses the platform on a laptop or smartphone. In-person interaction can enhance the social dynamics but also introduces new forms of coordination that students must navigate. To maintain some realism and allow freeriding behavior to emerge, we typically seat students from different villages apart during gameplay and bring them together during the institutional design phase. We will include these details in the revised manuscript to give readers a clearer sense of how the game is meant to be played and adapted to different teaching environments.
- Thank you for this helpful comment. You are right that the distinction between accessibility and playabilitycould be more clearly articulated, especially since we present this as a key contribution of Thirsty Earth over existing tools. In the revised manuscript, we will clarify that the full version of the game (v1) emphasizes playability, while the light version (v0) emphasizes accessibility. By playability, we refer to the user experience during gameplay—specifically, the ease with which players can engage with the game mechanics, receive real-time feedback, and interact with others. The full version of Thirsty Earth is built using a dedicated multiplayer game engine (boardgame.io), which supports smoother game flow, interactive 2D graphics, and automated management of rounds and player interactions. This contrasts with earlier games like Irrigania or the Groundwater Game, which use custom-built servers with more text-based or numerical interfaces, and with the River Basin Game, which is played physically using paper-based prompts and tokens rather than a digital multiplayer environment. By accessibility, we refer to the ease of adoption by instructors and the minimal technical barriers for both facilitators and players. The light version (v0) is fully implemented using Google Sheets and Forms, which requires no installation or technical setup. The game framework is openly available and can be copied, modified, and shared freely. This stands in contrast to the three comparison games, which typically require access codes or private distribution channels, and often involve steeper learning curves for facilitators unfamiliar with their platforms.
We will revise the referenced sentences to:
“The two versions of Thirsty Earth respectively emphasize playability and accessibility. The full version (v1) of the game prioritizes playability by leveraging a dedicated multiplayer game engine (boardgame.io) that supports interactive 2D graphics, real-time player coordination, and automated game flow, while the light version (v0), implemented entirely in Google Sheets and Forms, emphasizes accessibility by requiring no installation, login, or technical setup, making it easy for instructors to adopt and share."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-330-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Marc F. Muller, 02 Apr 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 329 | 113 | 22 | 464 | 39 | 14 | 26 |
- HTML: 329
- PDF: 113
- XML: 22
- Total: 464
- Supplement: 39
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 26
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Lauren McGiven
Kinsey Poland
Caleb Reinking
Marc F. Müller
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6375 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(337 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper