the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Gamified Disaster Education. A Systematic Review of Serious Games on Dealing with Natural Hazards and of their Impacts and Outcomes for Users
Abstract. Natural hazards pose a threat to human life and health. As a tool of risk communication and disaster education serious games are being used with increasing frequency. Even though an increase in research in the field is observable, little is known about serious games’ actual effectiveness. This systematic review gives an overview of existing publications on serious games dealing with natural hazards and evaluations of reported effects on users. We analyse 132 scientific articles and conference papers published between 2007 and 2025. Most publications describe digital serious games; analogue or hybrid formats were rarely explored. Flooding is the hazard addressed most frequently. 17 publications introduce and describe the serious games, while about half of the publications (n=73) report a usability evaluation of the games. This review focuses on the 42 publications that also include an evaluation of the serious games’ impact on the player. Most of these effectiveness evaluation studies do not apply any theoretical frameworks for the game development and/or evaluation processes. A noticeable concentration of findings concerns positive impacts on knowledge and self-efficacy. Behaviour, motivation, intention, further psychological impacts as well as specific competencies are explored in comparably few publications. Our findings show that theoretical frameworks play a subordinate role in the current research landscape examined. The quality of applied evaluation methods varied considerably. Most commonly reported impacts and outcomes for players were increased knowledge and self-efficacy.
- Preprint
(1010 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2372', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Aug 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2372', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Sep 2026
Review of manuscript egusphere-2026-2372
Thanks for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript.
General comments
The manuscript provides a review of serious games and game-based methodologies in the field of natural hazards, with particular focus on evaluation of potential impacts of participating in game-based sessions. This is a highly needed and welcome overview of the use of serious games in natural hazards research, and could fit well in GC.The manuscript is overall well written and does a good job pointing out current challenges around using gamified approaches in DRR research and education. While the conclusions may not be novel, the manuscript adds valuable systematic insights to the field, especially given the temporal scope covering almost two decades, and will help future research make sensible methodological choices. Doing so, it positions itself well among some other recent review papers with a related, but somewhat different, scope (Flood et al., 2018; Nowak et al., 2018; Forrest et al., 2022). Below are a few major, and some small comments that the authors may consider when submitting a revised manuscript.
While the manuscript provides an overview of relevant approaches and definitions related to serious games, a key general comment that I have pertains to the limited extent to which authors expand on their definitions of ‘education’ and ‘risk communication’ and how they guide the analysis. Section 1.3 partly addresses this by noting a range of indicators for evaluation (e.g. based on the Competence Model for Environmental Education), but they pertain first and foremost to ‘learning’ outcomes, and the reader still has to make its own understanding of how they relate to education, risk communication or both. Would it be more straightforward to frame the review around learning and knowledge outcomes within DRR instead?
Specific comments
The title reads somewhat constructed (“Review of Serious games on dealing with natural hazards…”) - could this be rephrased more concisely?Line 139-144: The description of inclusion/exlusion criteria are sufficient. However, instead of leaving implicit, would it be worth describing briefly (if relevant) how authors dealt with compound hazards that combine the natural hazard scope of the manuscript, with one or more hazards (e.g. health, chemical) that would fall outside of the scope?
Line 145-151: there are several papers out there that discuss different understandings of (serious) games, which is a quite relevant debate, the existence of which in itself shows that there may be a need for different methodological and theoretical perspectives in the field. Perhaps add one or two, to strengthen this paragraph?
Data analysis Section 2.3: There is potential to expand this section, and describe more thoroughly how authors interacted with the data throughout the analysis. Who did what, how did you deal with diverging insights. Overall, please provide more details on the analysis protocol.
Line 208-209: “Regarding the concept of serious games, many authors refer to the definitions by Abt (1970), or Michael and Chen (2011); others propose their own definitions without referring to specific authors.” Can this finding of varied theoretical embeddedness be described more thoroughly? I think it would add value as to position how the DRR field has been building on existing strands of theoretical definitions.
Line 438: “Based on our findings, we conclude that there is a clear need for a more structured approach to serious game research in the future.” This concluding sentence could be framed more specifically. For example, do you mean research on the use of serious gaming, research applying serious gaming as a theoretical and/or methodological approach, research specifically aimed at evaluation impact/outcomes of using serious gaming approaches?
Line 463: “To achieve better outcomes for education and communication an interdisciplinary approach on improving serious games is needed.” This sentence seems to function as a conclusion of the argument made in the paragraph. However, what about transdisciplinary approaches? Furthermore, the discussion could be strengthened by giving some examples of good practices (not necessarily within SG contexts, but perhaps from co-production approaches in DRR that successfully strengthen engagement of and with societal stakeholders)?
Minor comments
Figure 2 (line 181): were there any conference papers that subsequently were published as full papers?Line 310-312: As the framework of Connolly is (partly) used to structure a major part of the research findings, this sentence could fit well in the Methodology section.
Line 426 - what is meant with ‘borderline pseudo-evaluations?
General: the manuscript needs a thorough proofread to check minor spelling/formatting issues across several tables as well as reference formats.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2372-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 364 | 254 | 32 | 650 | 28 | 28 |
- HTML: 364
- PDF: 254
- XML: 32
- Total: 650
- BibTeX: 28
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please see comment attached