the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Sep 2026
Heroes of Disaster: a semi-cooperative board game for training pre-service primary teachers in disaster risk reduction
Abstract. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) education is increasingly recognised as a core competence for schools, yet initial teacher education often offers limited opportunities to rehearse actionable preparedness decisions. This study presents the design and educational rationale of Heroes of Disaster, a serious semi-cooperative board game developed to support scenario-based DRR learning, and reports on its classroom implementation and exploratory evaluation with pre-service primary teachers. Using a pre-test and delayed post-test design, with the post-test administered two weeks after gameplay, we collected data through structured questionnaires partly adapted from prior serious game instruments and framed around future teachers’ role as mediators of school–community preparedness. The instruments were designed to capture DRR-related judgements in typical risk situations, self-perceived skills and self-awareness, and post-intervention appraisals of the game (e.g. clarity, motivation, realism, cooperation, and classroom usefulness). In the matched sample, composite pre-test/post-test analyses showed a significant improvement in protective-action judgements and preparedness-oriented behaviours, whereas general DRR self-awareness and risk awareness showed only a small non-significant descriptive increase. Participants also reported a positive appraisal of the learning experience, particularly regarding the game’s perceived contribution to DRR learning, real-life applicability, cooperative dynamics, and motivational value. Overall, these findings support the educational potential of Heroes of Disaster as a teaching resource for moving from fragmented, hazard-centred instruction towards community-oriented DRR literacy through interactive and participatory learning dynamics.
- Preprint
(4015 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3132 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Oct 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4049', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Sep 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4049', Nieske Vergunst, 12 Oct 2026
reply
Dear authors and editors,
Thank you for letting me review the manuscript Heroes of Disaster: a semi-cooperative board game for training preservice primary teachers in disaster risk reduction. The authors present an engaging approach to disaster risk reduction (DRR) education, which is increasingly relevant in a world with more frequent and more severe natural hazards. The authors describe a semi-cooperative board game with primary school teachers as their target audience, with the idea that they will serve as ‘multipliers of knowledge’ towards their future students.
The manuscript is well-written and accessible, and I believe that it has the potential to serve as an insightful addition to the current body of literature on science communication and public engagement. However, some clarifications, expansions and improvements are needed. Most notably, I believe the manuscript currently lacks sufficient self-reflection. Below, I first list three main comments that I believe should be addressed in order to make the manuscript suitable for publication, followed by a number of minor comments that could serve to further improve the paper.
Main comments
In its current form, the most critical shortcoming of the paper is the lack of adequate self-reflection and a critical view on the board game. Currently, the manuscript only marginally addresses possible limitations in one short paragraph (line 482-486). I encourage the authors to add a substantial discussion section, in which they critically reflect on the game and the study, discuss limitations and possible future directions that could address these, and put the results into a broader context of research and practice. A sufficient discussion section might include, for example, the following questions:
- Considering the results of the study, which improvements could be made to the game? Which recommendations would the authors make to researchers and practitioners interested in developing or implementing a game-based intervention?
- Which controversial decisions and misconceptions (line 359) emerged, and how might these be addressed in an updated version of the game?
- To what extent is the concept of this specific board game tied to the subject of DRR education? Could the game be adapted for other contexts (e.g. geographic and/or cultural contexts) or other communication goals, and if so, what changes would be needed?
- The authors mention that the design of the game board is meant as ‘a starting point for discussing why some regions are more exposed than others’ (line 174). Did participants actually engage in such discussions? If so, how? If not, would how could this be stimulated or facilitated better?
- The authors acknowledge that the results are limited to self-perceptions (line 424/425); how might they be able to test demonstrated performance?
- The authors informed the participants about the aims of the activity at the start (line 352). Was this choice made consciously, and what impact might that have on participants’ self-evaluation of the aims?
- Generally, what does this study add to the current body of research and practice in DRR education, science communication, and public engagement?
The paper would also benefit from a description of the design process of the game, especially the choices that were made and the rationale behind them. The authors reflect on previous research and practice in the field of DRR education in Sections 1 and 2, but the manuscript does not contain a clear description of how these insights have informed the design of Heroes of Disaster. This may include general design choices (e.g., why a semi-cooperative form?), the design process itself (e.g., was a draft version of the game tested with the target audience, and if so, what happened and what was changed?), and specifics of the game (e.g., why these specific amounts of protection cards?). A better description of design choices will help other researchers and practitioners contextualize the game and inform their own design process.
Furthermore, I recommend restructuring Section 3 to improve clarity. The current order, starting with the components of the game, makes it difficult to grasp why these components are included in the game and why they are relevant for the reader to know. The section may be easier to follow if the authors first present the educational aims, learning outcomes and targeted competencies; then the core rules and game flow; and only then the game components and materials.
Minor comments
The target audience for the game is sometimes labeled as teachers and sometimes as students (e.g. in RQ1 and RQ2 respectively, but also elsewhere throughout the manuscript). This introduces some confusion and should be addressed, for example by consistently referring to the target audience as ‘preservice primary teachers’, as stated in the title, and further clarifying their role in the text.
In line 341, for completeness, also mention the percentage of participants identifying as men, and, if applicable, other genders.
In the pie charts on page 18, the way the ‘pie slices’ are positioned and coloured makes it difficult to see the results at a glance, and to compare answers across questions. The authors might consider using stacked horizontal bar charts instead, to allow readers to compare responses across questions more easily.
As a final suggestion, I would strongly encourage the authors to make the game materials available through a public repository such as Zenodo.
Conclusion
Overall, I believe this paper has the potential to serve as an insightful case study for game-based learning in DRR education, with practical insights for both researchers and practitioners. If the authors address the suggested improvements, I am confident that this paper will serve as a valuable addition to the field. I am looking forward to seeing the revised version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4049-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 226 | 96 | 46 | 368 | 58 | 51 | 53 |
- HTML: 226
- PDF: 96
- XML: 46
- Total: 368
- Supplement: 58
- BibTeX: 51
- EndNote: 53
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript addresses a relevant topic within the scope of Geoscience Communication and presents an original educational tool for disaster risk reduction in pre-service teacher education. The integration of serious-game design, DRR education and community-oriented learning provides a useful contribution to the existing literature. The scientific significance is somewhat limited by the exploratory nature of the evaluation, the single-institution context and the relatively small sample, but the contribution is nevertheless relevant and potentially useful for both researchers and practitioners working on geoscience and disaster-risk communication.
This is a well-conceived and clearly presented manuscript that I found relevant to the scope of Geoscience Communication. The study combines the development of a serious game for disaster risk reduction with an exploratory classroom evaluation among pre-service primary teachers. I particularly appreciate the explicit connection between the game mechanics, DRR learning objectives and the community-oriented perspective adopted by the authors. The manuscript is generally sound and, in my view, requires only minor revisions before publication.