Next Article in Journal
Creative Use of OpenAI in Education: Case Studies from Game Development
Previous Article in Journal
Design and Research of a Sound-to-RGB Smart Acoustic Device
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
MTI
Volume 7
Issue 8
10.3390/mti7080080
mti-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

“From Gamers into Environmental Citizens”: A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on Behavior Change Games for Environmental Citizenship

by
Yiannis Georgiou
1,2,*,
Andreas Ch. Hadjichambis
2,3,
Demetra Paraskeva-Hadjichambi
2,3 and
Anastasia Adamou
2,4
1
Department of Communication and Internet Studies, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol 3036, Cyprus
2
Cyprus Centre for Environmental Research and Education (CYCERE), Limassol 3304, Cyprus
3
Cyprus Ministry of Education, Sport and Youth, Nicosia 1434, Cyprus
4
Department of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment, Nicosia 1498, Cyprus
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2023, 7(8), 80; https://doi.org/10.3390/mti7080080
Submission received: 10 July 2023 / Revised: 7 August 2023 / Accepted: 11 August 2023 / Published: 14 August 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As the global environmental crisis intensifies, there has been a significant interest in behavior change games (BCGs), as a viable venue to empower players’ pro-environmentalism. This pro-environmental empowerment is well-aligned with the notion of environmental citizenship (EC), which aims at transforming citizens into “environmental agents of change”, seeking to achieve more sustainable lifestyles. Despite these arguments, studies in this area are thinly spread and fragmented across various research domains. This article is grounded on a systematic review of empirical articles on BCGs for EC covering a time span of fifteen years and published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings, in order to provide an understanding of the scope of empirical research in the field. In total, 44 articles were reviewed to shed light on their methodological underpinnings, the gaming elements and the persuasive strategies of the deployed BCGs, the EC actions facilitated by the BCGs, and the impact of BCGs on players’ EC competences. Our findings indicate that while BCGs seem to promote pro-environmental knowledge and attitudes, such an assertion is not fully warranted for pro-environmental behaviors. We reflect on our findings and provide future research directions to push forward the field of BCGs for EC.

1. Introduction

Over the years, serious games have gained traction as they are argued, among other things, to hold great promise for social change. Serious games have been defined as games designed for education, training, or modification of behavior [1]. Focusing on the latter, in recent decades, an ever-increasing number of serious games have been designed purposely for behavioral change. This trend has resulted in the emergence of behavior change games (BCGs), which form a subset of serious games [2] that are designed to support attitude and behavior change. BCGs, also known as games “for impact” or games “for change”, focus on persuasion to form or even change attitudes and behaviors, or simply to increase knowledge and awareness over various social and environmental issues [3]. In this sense, BCGs have the same nature as what are often called “persuasive” games [4]. More specifically, to achieve their goals, BCGs leverage the affordances of serious gaming such as engagement and fun while, at the same time, they adopt procedural rhetoric, defined as the practice of using processes persuasively (i.e., gameplay rules and mechanics) to make an argument about various issues, which makes them highly effective in behavioral and attitudinal change [5]. Put simply, these games combine a variety of elements in support of persuasive ethos and persuasive rhetoric [6]; in turn, this sets the stage for the significant attitude and behavior change which lies at the core of games for “impact” and “change” [7,8].
It is therefore not surprising that BCGs have been deployed to foster change in human behavior in relation to health, physical activity and fitness or safety, among many other things [9,10]. Importantly, games for persuasion have also been largely embraced in the field of environmental sustainability [11,12]. In particular, BCGs are considered of particular value in the midst of the environmental problems we are currently dealing with. This is to be expected considering that “the current state of degradation to environment is predominantly due to lack of appropriate human behavior” [13] (p. 1). For instance, although the majority of U.S. adults admit that humans are the main cause of this unprecedented environmental crisis, people are not necessarily willing to undertake action and do not prioritize environmental problems above other political issues [14]. In this context, BCGs may play a vital role for the achievement of environmental sustainability, by empowering pro-environmentalism and environmental citizenship (from hereafter EC). Put simply, BCGs may hold great promise for the transformation of citizens from “gamers” into “environmental agents of change” who seek to achieve more sustainable lifestyles.
Despite these arguments, empirical studies on BCGs are thinly spread across various research domains. In a way, this is expected given that BCGs are developed by multidisciplinary research teams comprising various stakeholders such as designers, artists, programmers, media producers, content experts, educators, etc. [15,16]. As a consequence, it is not surprising that BCGs are also a study object in various research domains (e.g., environmental sciences, instructional design, HCI, psychology, etc.). However, this situation results in a fragmented panorama from which meaningful conclusions on the design and impact of these games may not be deduced.
Aiming to address this gap, some major systematic reviews have sought to investigate the persuasive strategies and the gaming elements underpinning BCGs as well as their effectiveness in attitudinal and behavioral change [4,10]. In addition, a recent scientometric review has shed light on how the field has evolved over the years [17]. However, these studies have synthesized research across various domains, such as nutrition, physical activity, or environmental sustainability without focusing per se on the latter. Under these circumstances, the broad scope of prior reviews does not allow researchers to reach a clear consensus regarding the impact of BCGs on players’ pro-environmentalism, neither on the conducting of in-depth investigation on the underpinning game mechanics nor on the methodologies deployed to assess the effectiveness of these games.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to synthesize the results of empirical studies in the field and to produce an updated analysis on these aspects, focusing on BCGs for EC, following the PRISMA methodology. More specifically, this article provides a systematic review and synthesis of available empirical research covering a time span of fifteen years—published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings—to provide a well-informed mapping of the research area.
What follows is the theoretical background of this study. This is focused on a detailed elaboration of EC that also outlines the potential contribution of BCGs to transform players into “environmental citizens”. Next, we continue with the problem statement and the research questions guiding this review study, as well as with the deployed methodology. Finally, this paper concludes with the main findings and related discussion, as well as with the main conclusions and implications derived.

2. Theoretical Background

The goal for achieving more pro-environmental behavior is considered a prerequisite for addressing environmental problems and is a key driver of sustainability [18]. This is also reflected in the notion of environmental citizenship (EC), which has regained great attention in recent years due to the environmental crisis and refers to the obligation of each citizen to contribute to the conservation of the surrounding environment [12,19]. On one hand, EC highlights the need to equip people with an adequate body of knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and behaviors in order to be transformed into “environmental citizens” [20,21,22]. On the other hand, as presented in Figure 1, EC emphasizes that citizens should be able to participate in society as “agents of change”, via the undertaking of both individual and collective pro-environmental actions, situated in the private and public sphere [23,24,25,26,27].
Several attempts have therefore been made to promote EC, including governmental laws and coercive measures, large scale information campaigns using mass media, printed materials, or nature documentaries [28,29,30,31]. However, changing behavior is not a straightforward and simple task. Though people have awareness of various environmental problems, this does not automatically result in sustainable and pro-environmental behavior because of psychological barriers [32,33]. Resistance to pro-environmentalism is mainly attributed to the psychological distance of environmental threats, which make it harder for people to relate their personal habits and daily routines with global environmental issues [34]. In this way, people cannot relate their unsustainable actions to environmental degradation, and they are often unaware of the alternate behavioral options that are available. Similarly, people may believe that their actions cannot make a difference in large-scale environmental problems [35], while informational campaigns and governmental policies are often perceived as manipulative and their impact therefore diminished [28].
In search of innovative and interactive ways to empower EC, BCGs, or as they are also known “persuasive games”, have gained traction during the last years. According to Fogg [36], persuasion is “an attempt to shape, reinforce, or change behaviors, feelings, or thoughts about an issue, object, or action” (p. 225). Designing for persuasion—or change—must therefore focus on both guiding the user towards attitudinal or behavioral changes, while in addition to keeping the user motivated and engaged with the task at hand [37]. One way to achieve these goals is through the design of games, which are extended beyond fun and leverage various persuasive strategies and gaming mechanisms to inform the gamers about environmental issues, while prompting them to adopt pro-environmental behaviors [38]. It can be therefore argued that BCGs may provide an ideal venue for the empowerment of EC.

3. Problem Statement and Research Questions

Despite these arguments, there has been a great skepticism in the use of digital games to drive pro-environmental behaviors, as they may detract players’ attentions from real-world environmental problems, thus resulting in an even greater disengagement with these issues [39,40,41]. It should, therefore, be noted that to have the intended impact, BCGs should be underpinned by appropriate gaming elements and persuasive design strategies [4]. Importantly, though existing studies may often report the effectiveness of BCGs, insights regarding the selected gaming elements and persuasive strategies are less emphasized [42,43]. As such, this information remains fragmented across different studies [44,45]. Taking into consideration these concerns, various scholars have stressed the need for robust impact evaluations of game-based interventions as well as for the synthesizing of the existing corpus of relevant empirical studies [46,47,48]. Of course, to effectively synthesize existing empirical research on game-based outcomes, emphasis should also be given on the methodological characteristics of these studies, i.e., research design, sample size, data collection methods, etc. [49].
Intrigued by the aforementioned concerns and recommendations, this study provides a systematic literature review (SLR) of 44 empirical articles employing BCGs for EC, published in relevant academic journals and conference proceedings, covering a time span of 15 years (2007–2021). As part of this review, we focused on the impact of BCGs on players’ EC competences (i.e., EC behaviors, values, attitudes, skills, knowledge) in conjunction with the methodological characteristics of the reviewed articles, the gaming elements and persuasive strategies underpinning the deployed BCGs, as well as the EC actions supported by the reviewed BCGs. In particular, this SLR is driven by the following four (4) research questions:
  • RQ1: Which are the main methodological characteristics of the reviewed articles?
  • RQ2: Which are the main gaming elements and persuasive strategies underpinning the reviewed BCGs?
  • RQ3: What kind of EC actions are supported by the BCGs?
  • RQ4: What is the impact of the BCGs on players’ EC competences (i.e., EC behaviors, values, attitudes, skills, knowledge)?

4. Methodology

4.1. Data Collection

The studies included in this SLR covered empirical research published from 2007 to 2021. We decided to focus on a timespan of fifteen years, having as starting date 2007, which was a milestone year in the field due to Bogost’s book “Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames”. Bogost’s book became a landmark as it is considered the starting point which triggered researchers’ interest in the question of how we can design serious games to change the attitudes or behaviors of players. More precisely, this book served as a trigger for initiating discussions and research supporting the idea that serious games have the potential to change the world for the better [50].
The retrieval of the reviewed studies followed the PRISMA standards for SLRs (http://prisma-statement.org/ accessed on 23 September 2021) and was based on a multi-step procedure comprising three sequential stages, as follows: (a) identification, (b) screening, and (c) eligibility (Figure 2). In addition, a detailed protocol was developed and registered prior to the completion of this review study (PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023445621).
Initially, in the first step, the published literature was surveyed using two electronic databases—Scopus (Document Search→Article title, Abstract, Keywords) and Web of Science Core Collection (Basic search→Topic [article title, abstract, author keywords]). The selection of the specific databases was purposeful as Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection are two large bibliometric databases covering a broad range of subject areas.
We constructed our search strings, taking into consideration the overarching research goal of this SRL, namely the synthesis of the available empirical research on Behavior Change Games (BCGs) for EC. Toward this end, our search strings were grounded on combinations of retrieval keywords related to “Games” with retrieval keywords related to “Environmental Citizenship (EC)” (see Table 1). More specifically, we retrieved both databases using the following search strings: “Serious games” OR “Digital games” OR “Behav* change games” OR “Persuasive games” OR “Impact games” OR “Games for change” AND “Attitud* change” OR “Behav* change” OR “Environmental citizens” OR “Sustainable behav*” OR “Sustainability” OR “Pro-environmental behav*” OR “Pro-environmental attitudes” OR “Pro-environmental actions”.
After performing all possible combinations, we retrieved a total of 1015 records from the two databases. In the second step, the results of each retrieval were uploaded into Mendeley software (https://www.mendeley.com/?interaction_required=true, accessed on 9 July 2023), where all the records were screened and both internal duplicates, as well as duplicates between the two databases (n = 452) were removed, resulting in a total of 563 records. In the third step, the remaining records (n = 563) were filtered to identify their eligibility on the basis of four selection criteria.
In particular, to be included in the corpus of the reviewed studies, a study ought to have met four criteria, as follows: (1) Source type: the study should have been published in English as a peer-reviewed paper in the format of a journal or a conference paper; (2) Research methods: the study should be empirical, providing primary data derived from quantitative, qualitative, or mixed designs; (3) Type of intervention: the study should report on the deployment and investigation of a BCG; (4) Research focus: the study should be related to the research foci of the present review, e.g., reporting on the methodological characteristics of the empirical studies, on the impact of BCGs on EC outcomes, as well as on the gaming elements/persuasive strategies of the BCGs.
More specifically, the title, abstract and keywords of the studies retained through steps 1 and 2 (n = 563) were filtered according to these four inclusion criteria. As part of this process, the studies were evaluated in relation to their eligibility, using the following color coding: (a) green-tagging, for highly usable studies aligned with the criteria posed; (b) red-tagging, for studies outside the review scope, not aligned with the criteria posed; and (c) orange-tagging, for studies of potential utility, given that these studies seemed quite relevant to the scope of this review, but in which it was not absolutely clear from their title, abstract and keywords whether all the inclusion criteria were met. In this latter case, full-text versions of the studies were also obtained, read and filtered, in order to confirm whether these studies were aligned with the criteria posed or not. This final selection process resulted in 32 publications.
Finally, the ancestry method [51] was also adopted, according to which we searched the references of the identified research articles for empirical studies that could be included in the present review. This process yielded 12 additional articles. Overall, a total of 44 empirical studies met all the inclusion criteria and were selected for this review.

4.2. Coding and Analysis

To answer the first research question, focused on the methodology of the reviewed articles, we conducted a bottom-up content analysis of the empirical studies without having any predetermined categories in mind to identify their methodological characteristics (i.e., research focus, study type, game type, game duration, sample, data collection).
To address the second research question, we conducted a top-down content analysis of the articles to identify the main gaming elements and persuasive strategies underpinning the reviewed games. In particular, we adopted the classification of Toda et al. [52] that emerged via the compilation of prior gaming taxonomies in educational contexts. In its essence, and extending prior taxonomies in the field, Toda et al. [52,53] proposed a new classification to group the previously defined gaming elements along five (5) dimensions, as follows: (a) performance elements, (b) ecological elements, (c) social elements, (d) personal elements, and (e) fictional elements. In addition, we adopted the persuasive system design framework of Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa [54], which has been largely used in the design of persuasive technologies, due to its comprehensive nature. This framework combines a total of 28 persuasive mechanisms derived from previous frameworks such as Cialdini’s principles of persuasion [55,56] and the Fogg behavioral model [57], grouped along four dimensions, as follows: (a) primary task support, (b) dialogue support, (c) social support, and (d) system credibility support.
To investigate the third research question, we initially conducted a bottom-up content analysis of the empirical studies to identify the focus of the EC actions supported by the reviewed BCGs. Subsequently, we adopted the EEC model [22] to identify and code the dimension (individual/collective) as well as the sphere (private/public) of the EC actions supported by the reviewed BCGs.
Finally, to address the fourth and final research question we identified the impact of the reviewed BCGs on players’ EC competences in terms of: (a) knowledge (i.e., information and awareness), (b) skills, (c) attitudes, (d) values, and (e) behaviors. More specifically, we categorized the reviewed articles according to their reported effectiveness on the EC competences, as follows: (a) positive effect (positive impact on EC competences), (b) no effect (no impact on the EC competences), and (c) mixed effect (inconclusive findings regarding the impact on the EC competences).
To facilitate the coding and the analysis process detailed information of all fully read and included studies was entered into an Excel spreadsheet (e.g., year of publication, type of publication, scope of journals/conferences in which these studies were published, distribution of studies per country). In addition, an Excel spreadsheet was also set up per research question, as a matrix so that frequency counts and data searches could be easily achieved.

5. Results

An overview of the 44 empirical articles included in the reviewed corpus of this SRL is illustrated in Table 2.
As presented, twenty-three of these articles were published in journals (52.3%), while twenty-one articles in conference proceedings (47.7%). The vast of majority of the reviewed articles were mainly published in computer/informatics (n = 16, 36.3%) or environmental-related journals and conferences (n = 10, 22.7%), followed by a smaller corpus of articles which were published in journals and conferences related to education (n = 6, 13.6%), human–computer interaction (n = 5, 11.4%), games (n = 5, 11.4%), psychology (n = 1, 2.3%) and design (n = 1, 2.3%). Focusing on the publication dates, a total of 8 articles were published between 2007 and 2011 (18.2%); another 13 articles were published during 2012–2016 (29.5%), while 23 articles were published during 2017–2021 (52.3%). A considerable peak in the published articles can be observed during the last 5 years (2017–2021), indicating the increasing interest in the topic as well as the emerging nature of research in this field. Finally, as presented in Figure 3, most of the research/academic institutions which conducted the reviewed articles were found in Netherlands, USA, and UK.
What follows, is the presentation of the main findings per research question guiding this SRL.

5.1. Methodological Characteristics

The 44 articles (n = 44) included in our review corpus, presented a total of 50 (n = 50) empirical studies (i.e., 6 of the reviewed articles presented two empirical studies). An overview of the methodological characteristics of these studies is presented in Table 3.
To begin with their research focus, most of these studies were primarily focused on the effectiveness of the deployed BCGs on users’ EC (n = 35 studies, 70%), rather than addressing the usability (n = 8 studies, 16%) or exploring the design of the adopted BCGs (n = 7 studies, 14%). Focusing on the research design, approximately half (n = 24 studies, 48%) were experimental studies (e.g., pre-posttest studies, experimental or quasi-experimental studies), while the rest (n = 26 studies, 52%) were small scale and preliminary evaluation research studies (e.g., usability studies, field trial studies, pilot studies). Regarding the types of the BCGs deployed, the most prominent were pervasive games, 3D virtual games or 2D digital games (n = 9 studies per type). Focusing on the duration of the BCGs, only eight (16%) demonstrated long-term game-based interventions, as most of the reviewed studies (n = 19 studies, 38%) enacted short-term interventions which lasted from some minutes to some hours. Regarding the sampling, in the vast majority of the studies (n = 43 studies, 86%) the sample comprised adults or mixed-age samples and included up to a maximum of 100 players (n = 39 studies, 78%). On the other hand, we have identified only seven studies (14%) with children and/or adolescents as well as only nine studies with large samples comprising more than 100 players Finally, the most prominent data collection approaches were surveys (n = 41 studies, 82%), interviews (n = 15 studies, 30%), and energy consumption measures (n = 14 studies, 28%).

5.2. Gaming Elements and Persuasive Mechanisms

Though not to the same degree, all forty-four articles (n = 44), provided insights regarding the gaming elements and the persuasive strategies underpinning the BCGs.
Focusing on the gaming elements (Table 4), the most reported were the performance/measurement elements, e.g., “points”, “stats”, “levels” (n = 43 articles, 97.7%); followed by social elements, e.g., “competition”, “collaboration”, “social pressure” (n = 29 articles, 65.9%); and ecological elements, e.g., “economy”, “time pressure”, “chance” (n = 29 articles, 65.9%). However, we have also noticed that there were gaming elements such as “reputation”, “imposed choice”, “rarity”, “novelty” and “renovation” which were not deployed at all.
Focusing on the persuasive mechanisms (Table 5), the most reported were the dialogue support ones, e.g., “rewards”, “suggestions”, “praise” (n = 44 articles, 100%), followed by primary task support mechanisms, e.g., “simulation”, “self-monitoring”, “tunneling”, (n = 34 articles, 77.3%). However, as in the case of the gaming mechanisms, we have also noticed that there were persuasive mechanisms, especially in the category of system credibility support, which were not deployed at all.

5.3. EC Actions

All 44 articles (n = 44) also report that the adopted BCGs urged players to undertake certain EC actions during the gameplay. An overview of these actions is presented in Figure 4.
In their vast majority, these actions were mostly focused on energy conservation (n = 31 articles, 70.4%), as well as on waste management (n = 7 articles, 15.8%). In addition, focusing on the sphere of the EC actions, almost all the reported EC actions were classified in the private (n = 43 articles, 97.7%), rather than in the public sphere (n = 1 article, 2.3%). Put simply, most of the reported EC actions were found to affect the relations between individuals and societies (e.g., saving energy, recycling, following a more sustainable diet), rather than affecting the relation in societies (e.g., lobbying local councils and policymakers, participating in environmental campaigns, voting for environmental issues). Finally, we have found that most of the reviewed articles report on individual EC actions (n = 29 articles, 65.9%), namely actions taken on an individual basis, but a significant portion of articles also report on BCGs which supported collective actions (n = 11 articles, 25%).

5.4. Impact on EC Competences

The reviewed articles also report on the impact of BCGs on knowledge, in terms of players’ acquisition of new information and/or environmental awareness (n = 29 articles, 65.9%), attitudes (n = 24 articles, 54.5%), and behaviors (n = 26 articles, 59%) (Table 6).
The majority of these articles presented empirical findings supporting the effectiveness of the BCGs in profoundly promoting players’ environmental knowledge (n = 23 articles, 52.3%) and attitudes (n = 19 articles, 43.2%), but to a lesser degree on players’ behavioral change (n = 17 articles, 38.6%). Likewise, while a limited portion of the studies showed mixed or no impact on players’ environmental knowledge (n = 6 studies, 13.6%) and attitudes (n = 5 studies, 11.4%), an increased number of studies (n = 9 studies, 20.4%) showed mixed or no impact on players’ behavioral change. For instance, in their study, Dunn et al. [58] found that the “Wildverse” BCG was not successful in encouraging players to donate to wildlife conservation. In addition, in their study, Hafner et al. [65] concluded that the “EnergyCat” BCG did not lead to any substantive changes in energy consumption practices due to several reasons but mainly attributed to the unsuccessful game design and usability issues. On the other hand, the studies of Gustafsson et al. [64] and Geelen et al. [63] demonstrate that while the adopted BCGs contributed to short-term behavioral changes, they did not result in any long-term behavioral impacts.

6. Discussion

Growing concern due to the intensification of the global environmental crisis has served as springboard for the development of technological solutions aiming at the empowerment of citizens’ pro-environmentalism. Toward this direction, behavioral change games (BCGs) may play a significant role, as they are assumed to promote environmental citizenship (EC) [11,12]. Put simply, using a combination of persuasive strategies and gaming elements, these games are hypothesized to equip players with an amalgam of pro-environmental competences. Following this reasoning, our study has provided a systematic review of 44 empirical articles, aiming to explore if the adoption of BCGs can, indeed, transform people from “gamers” into “environmental citizens”. What follows is the discussion of our main findings per research question.

6.1. Impact on EC Competences

Though labeled as BCGs for having the empowerment of pro-environmental behaviors as their ultimate goal, according to our findings, the BCGs deployed in the reviewed articles were more successful in promoting pro-environmental knowledge and attitudes, rather than behaviors. More specifically, about one third of the reviewed articles indicated no impact of BCGs on EC behaviors or provided inconclusive findings. Therefore, while the outcomes of BCGs have often been argued to go beyond the cognitive (i.e., environmental knowledge and awareness) and toward influencing behavior [82,96,97], our findings question the success of BCGs in affecting and transforming players’ pro-environmental behaviors. These findings may be attributed to the way in which influencing behavior is often made a challenging task due to people’s resistance [32,98,99,100], while environmental knowledge and attitudes can be altered much more easily. In the next sections, we will also provide some additional plausible explanations for this issue, drawing on our findings about the design of the reviewed BCGs (i.e., gaming elements and persuasive mechanisms), the EC actions supported by the reviewed BCGs, as well as the methodological aspects of the reviewed studies.

6.2. Gaming Elements and Persuasive Mechasnisms

Focusing on the design of the reviewed BCGs, the most prevalent category of gaming elements were the performance/measurement elements and more specifically, “points” and “stats”. Then, focusing on the persuasive mechanisms, the most prevalent category was the dialogue support mechanisms and more specifically, “rewards” and “suggestions”. The prevalence of “points” is reasonable given that a scoring system is the most common element to engage the players with the gameplay and urge them to perform certain desired behaviors [4,101]. Likewise, an ever-increasing literature corpus has pointed out the role of rewards in motivating players to complete the required tasks and reach the game objectives, while also providing them a sense of pleasure and satisfaction [102,103,104]. In addition, our findings are well-aligned with prior research in the field of gaming, considering that “stats” and “suggestions” served as the major feedback mechanisms of the deployed BCGs. More specifically, researchers in the field have associated feedback with clear goals and challenges which contribute to the sense of flow during the gameplay [105], while also keeping the player motivated [106]. Importantly, feedback has also been argued to enhance learning effectiveness, mitigate poor performance [106], and have an impact on behavioral intention [107].
According to our review, the aforementioned gaming elements were supplemented by additional elements classified in the categories of “social” and “ecological”, while the aforementioned persuasive mechanisms were supplemented by additional elements classified in the category of “primary task support mechanisms”. However, we have also found that there were some gaming elements and persuasive mechanisms which were not adopted at all; researchers could therefore pay more attention to these neglected elements and mechanisms. In addition, despite the variance of the gaming mechanisms and the persuasive mechanisms deployed, we have noticed that only a small portion (14%) of the reviewed articles had a straightforward focus on evaluating the design of the deployed BCGs, seeking to identify the most effective gaming elements and persuasive strategies for empowering players’ EC (see for example [38,67,69,78]). This finding echoes Hammady’s and Arnab’s remark that “existing studies and reviews often report the effectiveness of game interventions on behavior change without offering any insights into why and how games and gameplay are effective on a granular design level by reflecting on the choice of game elements used in the design” [4] (p. 3). Hence, as successfully posed by Fijnheer et al. [66], future studies should systematically examine which persuasive features of BCGs exactly promote lasting changes in pro-environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.

6.3. Empowerment of EC Actions

Regarding the EC actions supported by the reviewed BCGs, we have observed three main breakthroughs in relation to the EC actions’ focus, spheres and dimensions. Firstly, the EC actions undertaken by the players during these games were narrowed down to the aspects of energy conservation and waste management. This can be attributed to the way in which unsustainable energy and waste management patterns are often considered among some of the greatest barriers to environmental sustainability [78,93]. However, we argue that there are several other areas in which future BCGs may focus, such as water spending, transportation, food consumption etc., which could also serve as the subject of the BCGs. Secondly, the EC actions undertaken by the players during the BCGs were, except in one case (see Dunn et al. [65]), situated in the private sphere. Put simply, the reported EC actions were oriented toward affecting the relations between individuals and societies, rather than affecting relations in societies [108]. However, EC is not limited to private sphere actions, which simply relates to personal lifestyles and everyday behaviors (e.g., purchasing choices, energy conservation, waste management). Instead, EC expands beyond private sphere actions into embracing public sphere actions, which are often related to more activist behaviors such as donating, lobbying policymakers or being a member of environmental associations [22,109,110]. We therefore argue that future BCGs should invest more effort towards this direction, by providing equal attention toward the transformation of players both into “private”, as well as “public” EC actors. Finally, the deployed BCGs supported to a much greater degree individual EC actions, rather than collective actions. However, building a sense of community-based responsibility encourages the citizens to work collectively towards the common good, which is a crucial aspect of EC [111,112]. Following this reasoning, another suggestion for the design of future BCGs is the integration of collaborative gameplay modes to a greater degree, to encourage collective action when addressing a given socio-environmental issue.

6.4. Methodological Aspects

Our review has also shed light on the methodological aspects (i.e., study type, game duration, sample, and data collection) underpinning the reviewed studies. Drawing from these findings, we argue these methodological aspects may define the effectiveness of a game-based intervention.
Focusing on study type, it should be noted that approximately half of the reviewed studies were small-scale and/or preliminary research. These studies took the form of pilots, field trials or user studies and, as such, were mostly structured around prototypes of BCGs. However, as reported, these prototypes were often not well-aligned with users’ needs [72,73] and the targeted behaviors [94], or presented several technical issues which ranged from glitches to crashes [65]. In turn, this may have limited the impact of the games, while also indicating the need to deploy more robust BCGs in order to induce the intended behavior changes [65,85]. Next, focusing on the duration of the enacted BCGs, about half of the studies report short-term game-based interventions ranging from minutes to hours, while only a small portion (16%) of the reviewed studies report long-term interventions ranging from months to a year. However, considering the idea that pro-environmental values and behaviors are deeply rooted in the personality and, as such, are rather constant and difficult to change [110,113], it is also quite reasonable that game-based interventions of limited duration usually have limited impact on players’ pro-environmental behaviors.
In terms of the data collection, most of the reviewed studies are dominated by the use of self-report measurements (i.e., surveys). In a way this can be problematic, given that such subjective data collection techniques are characterized by a degree of uncertainty [114], as they “do not necessarily reflect the practical changes and implications in the activities and behaviors of players” [95] (p. 12). To overcome this issue, according to Janakiraman et al. [75] future studies should combine, when possible, self-report measurements with more objective measurements, such as observations and measurements of daily habits (i.e., energy consumption, electricity shifting, consumption patterns, transportation modes, etc.). Finally, our findings point out that the dominance of small sample sizes is another methodological challenge for the generalizability of the reviewed articles’ empirical findings. This relatively low number of participants may be related to the emphasis placed on adult recruitment. More specifically, it may be more challenging for adults to take part in such research studies due to their busy schedules, the intrusiveness of BCGs in their everyday routines and contexts (e.g., households, workplaces), their lack of interest/skills in gaming, and sometimes, due to their low ICT literacy and confidence when using computers [72,73,115]. Future studies in the field could therefore focus on the recruitment of children and adolescents in K-12 education.

7. Limitations and Future Research

Though the findings of this review study may help to flesh out a more comprehensive picture of the state of the art regarding empirical research on BCGs for EC, some limitations of this work are important to note.
From a methodological point of view, our literature review was limited in terms of the keywords and databases we used for the articles’ retrieval during the document search. Using specific keywords and databases for searching may not have retrieved all of the possibly relevant articles. However, the selection of multiple keywords and search strings in combination with the deployed ancestry method limits the influence of this bias. Additionally, this systematic review of the literature included only empirical studies, thus excluding theoretical studies in the field, which may provide more insights into BCGs and their impact on pro-environmentalism. However, all of the studies included were thoroughly analyzed using a coherent and well-crafted data analysis procedure, thus providing evidence-based substantiation to the research questions guiding this study. Finally, our review addressed only empirical studies on BCGs, also known as persuasive games, excluding other empirical studies on persuasive systems and technologies or mobile apps for EC. However, we argue that BCGs, as a specific media genre, have unique properties and characteristics, and, as such, they deserve to be studied on their own. Furthermore, the decision to limit the scope of this review solely to BCGs promoting pro-environmentalism allowed for a more focused lens, thus providing deeper insights regarding the empirical research in the field.
From a theoretical point of view, the focus of this review study on environmental citizenship (EC) and the implementation of the EEC model to guide our analysis on the impact of BCGs on players’ pro-environmentalism (i.e., pro-environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors) may be considered another limitation. In particular, when adopting this top-down approach on coding and analysis, we left out the potential impact of these games on other aspects, such as, for instance, on the development of players’ soft skills, which may be an interesting direction for future studies. In addition, it should be noted that the main purpose of this study was to identify and record the main gaming and persuasive elements underpinning BCGs, rather than isolating and comparing their effectiveness. Future studies should therefore proceed a step further and, adopting a meta-analysis approach, investigate this issue. Finally, as part of this review study, we have acknowledged the multidisciplinary nature of research in the field of BCGs. However, investigating and analyzing the retrieved data, in order to understand how synergies and collaborative partnerships of research networks exist in this field, was out the scope of this systematic review. As the corpus of empirical studies increases, future studies could shed light in this area by investigating the research synergies among the different domains underpinning the development, deployment and evaluation of BCGs for EC (e.g., HCI, computer science, environmental science, education and psychology).

8. Conclusions and Implications

In conclusion, BCGs promoting environmental citizenship (EC) form a nascent but growing research area. An ongoing debate exists as to whether these games are more about promoting pro-environmentalism or just playing. In a systematic review of literature, we have identified and analyzed 44 empirical articles in the field, seeking to shed light on this issue. Our analyses indicated that, while BCGs seem to promote EC competences in terms of pro-environmental knowledge and attitudes, such an assertion is not fully warranted for pro-environmental behavior. In other words, our findings cannot fully support the idea that BCGs have the capacity to transform the players from “gamers into environmental citizens”. Future research should therefore explore this topic further, considering the design, EC content and implementation/evaluation of these games. What follows is a sequence of implications and recommendations in relation to these aspects, which may support the development of practical contributions in the field.

8.1. Design-Related Implications

We advocate that research on BCGs needs to move away from “victory narratives” (e.g., successful evaluation stories on the effectiveness of BCGs) to focus instead on the design of BCGs (i.e., identification of the most influencing gaming elements and persuasive mechanisms) which can contribute to the promotion of EC. This is of great importance, given that, while several studies have supported the idea that game features can provoke behavioral change, when testing any given media product, the combination of the selected media features can easily produce different results [116]. Future research on BCGs should therefore focus on identifying those game characteristics which may have a significant impact on players’ EC [117]. In addition, from a design point of view, we also suggest the adoption of co-design approaches aiming at the co-development of BCGs in collaboration with the gamers; this may also ensure that the produced BCGs will be fully aligned with the needs and expectations of the target group.

8.2. Content-Related Implications

We argue that content-wise, BCGs need to integrate EC to a greater degree, by embracing a larger repertoire of EC actions situated in the broader context of attempts to address biodiversity loss, climate change, deforestation, water depletion and desertification, rather than being narrowed down to decontextualized and fragmented EC actions related to energy conservation and waste management practices. We also suggest that, according to the EC conceptualization [22], BCGs should include EC actions situated in both private and public spheres, as well as in both the individual and collective dimensions.

8.3. Methodological-Related Implications

From a methodological point of view, we suggest the use of more robust BCGs (rather than testbeds and prototypes) as well as their deployment for longer periods of time. Many researchers have also proposed the need for more longitudinal interventions to achieve long-term and sustained behavioral changes, which will last after the end of a game [13,70,76]. In addition, when evaluating the impact of BCGs, we recommend the adoption of a mixed-based approach comprising both self-report measurements and more objective measurements, such as observations and measurements of daily habits. Such an approach will not only allow a more holistic and in-depth evaluation, but at the same time will also contribute to the data triangulation given that the strengths of one type of data may mitigate the weaknesses of the other. Finally, we also suggest the implementation and evaluation of BCGs with bigger samples, mainly comprising children and adolescents rather than adults. Young children and adolescents are considered ‘digital natives’ who are inherently competent and confident with digital technologies [118], and as such they may be also more eager to take part in such studies. Furthermore, EC should be promoted beginning from childhood onwards, and BCGs may provide an ideal venue for this purpose. If the research community shifts its focus to these directions, then game on!

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.G.; methodology, Y.G., A.C.H., D.P.-H. and A.A.; formal analysis, Y.G.; investigation, Y.G., A.C.H. and D.P.-H.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.G.; writing—review and editing, A.C.H., D.P.-H. and A.A.; visualization, Y.G. and A.A.; project administration, Y.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

This study is partly inspired by ENEC—European Network for Environmental Citizenship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kinross, J.M. Precision Gaming for Health: Computer Games as Digital Medicine. Methods 2018, 151, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Boyle, E.; Connolly, T.M.; Hainey, T. The Role of Psychology in Understanding the Impact of Computer Games. Entertain. Comput. 2011, 2, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Burch, E. Echo Chamber: A Persuasive Game for Reexamining Climate Change Rhetoric; Drexel University: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hammady, R.; Arnab, S. Serious Gaming for Behaviour Change: A Systematic Review. Information 2022, 13, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bogost, I. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; ISBN 0262261944. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ruggiero, D. The Effect of a Persuasive Social Impact Game on Affective Learning and Attitude. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 45, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Flanagan, M.; Nissenbaum, H. Values at Play in Digital Games; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; ISBN 0262027666. [Google Scholar]
  8. Walsh, E. How to Design for Impact in Games; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: Troy, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 0438526104. [Google Scholar]
  9. De Vries, P.W.; Oinas-Kukkonen, H.; Siemons, L.; Beerlage-de Jong, N.; van Gemert-Pijnen, L. Persuasive Technology: Development and Implementation of Personalized Technologies to Change Attitudes and Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference, PERSUASIVE 2017, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4–6 April 2017; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; Volume 10171, ISBN 3319551345. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ndulue, C.; Orji, R. Games for Change-A Comparative Systematic Review of Persuasive Strategies in Games for Behaviour Change. IEEE Trans. Games 2022, 15, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Agnisarman, S.; Madathil, K.C.; Stanley, L. A Survey of Empirical Studies on Persuasive Technologies to Promote Sustainable Living. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 2018, 19, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. D’Arco, M.; Marino, V. Environmental Citizenship Behavior and Sustainability Apps: An Empirical Investigation. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2022, 16, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bardhan, R.; Bahuman, C.; Pathan, I.; Ramamritham, K. Designing a Game Based Persuasive Technology to Promote Pro-Environmental Behaviour (PEB). In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10-HTC), Cebu, Philippines, 9–12 December 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  14. Leiserowitz, A.; Maibach, E.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Rosenthal, S.; Cutler, M. Climate Change in the American Mind: May 2017. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. 2017. Available online: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-american-mind-may-2017/ (accessed on 27 March 2022).
  15. Iacovides, I.; Cox, A.; Furniss, D.; Stawarz, K.; Jennett, C.; Adams, A. Supporting Engagement in Research through a Game Design Competition. Res. All 2019, 3, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Jaccard, D.; Suppan, L.; Sanchez, E.; Huguenin, A.; Laurent, M. The Co. LAB Generic Framework for Collaborative Design of Serious Games: Development Study. JMIR Serious Games 2021, 9, e28674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bassanelli, S.; Vasta, N.; Bucchiarone, A.; Marconi, A. Gamification for Behavior Change: A Scientometric Review. Acta Psychol. 2022, 228, 103657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Environmental Evidence Australia. A Review of Best Practice in Environmental Citizenship Models; Environment Protection Authority Victoria: Victoria, Australia, 2012.
  19. Hadjichambis, A.C.; Reis, P. Introduction to the Conceptualisation of Environmental Citizenship for Twenty-First-Century Education. In Conceptualizing Environmental Citizenship for 21st Century Education; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 4, pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  20. Georgiou, Y.; Hadjichambis, A.C.; Hadjichambi, D. Teachers’ Perceptions on Environmental Citizenship: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hadjichambis, A.C.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D.; Georgiou, Y. Evaluating a Novel Learning Intervention Grounded in the Education for Environmental Citizenship Pedagogical Approach: A Case Study from Cyprus. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hadjichambis, A.C.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D. Education for Environmental Citizenship: The Pedagogical Approach. In Conceptualizing Environmental Citizenship for 21st Century Education; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 4, pp. 237–261. [Google Scholar]
  23. Vasiliades, M.A.; Hadjichambis, A.C.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D.; Adamou, A.; Georgiou, Y. A Systematic Literature Review on the Participation Aspects of Environmental and Nature-Based Citizen Science Initiatives. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Adamou, A.; Georgiou, Y.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D.; Hadjichambis, A.C. Environmental Citizen Science Initiatives as a Springboard towards the Education for Environmental Citizenship: A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hadjichambi, D.; Hadjichambis, A.C.; Adamou, A.; Georgiou, Y. A Systematic Literature Review of K-12 Environmental Citizen Science (CS) Initiatives: Unveiling the CS Pedagogical and Participatory Aspects Contributing to Students’ Environmental Citizenship. Educ. Res. Rev. 2023, 39, 100525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hadjichambis, A.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D.; Georgiou, Y.; Adamou, A. How Can We Transform Citizens into ‘environmental Agents of Change’? Towards the Citizen Science for Environmental Citizenship (CS4EC) Theoretical Framework Based on a Meta-Synthesis Approach. Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B 2023, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hadjichambis, A.C.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D.; Sinakou, E.; Adamou, A.; Georgiou, Y. Green Cities for Environmental Citizenship: A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research from 31 Green Cities of the World. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. De Vries, G. Public Communication as a Tool to Implement Environmental Policies. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 2020, 14, 244–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fernández-Bellon, D.; Kane, A. Natural History Films Raise Species Awareness—A Big Data Approach. Conserv. Lett. 2020, 13, e12678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gustafsson, A.; Bång, M.; Svahn, M. Power Explorer: A Casual Game Style for Encouraging Long Term Behavior Change among Teenagers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Athens Greece, 29–31 October 2009; pp. 182–189. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kapos, V.; Balmford, A.; Aveling, R.; Bubb, P.; Carey, P.; Entwistle, A.; Hopkins, J.; Mulliken, T.; Safford, R.; Stattersfield, A. Calibrating Conservation: New Tools for Measuring Success. Conserv. Lett. 2008, 1, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Arbuthnott, K.D. Education for Sustainable Development beyond Attitude Change. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2009, 10, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to pro-Environmental Behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Verplanken, B.; Roy, D. Empowering Interventions to Promote Sustainable Lifestyles: Testing the Habit Discontinuity Hypothesis in a Field Experiment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Page, N.; Page, M. Climate Change: Time to Do Something Different. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 1294. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Fogg, B.J. Persuasive Computers: Perspectives and Research Directions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 18–23 April 1998; pp. 225–232. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gardeli, A.; Vosinakis, S.; Englezos, K.; Mavroudi, D.; Stratis, M.; Stavrakis, M. A Week without Plastic Bags: Creating Games and Interactive Products for Environmental Awareness. In Proceedings of the Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology: 14th International Conference, ACE 2017, London, UK, 14–16 December 2017; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 128–138. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fox, J.; McKnight, J.; Sun, Y.; Maung, D.; Crawfis, R. Using a Serious Game to Communicate Risk and Minimize Psychological Distance Regarding Environmental Pollution. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 46, 101320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Greenwood, C. Fate of The World: Computer Gaming for Conservation? Oryx 2012, 46, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Kahn Jr, P.H. Technological Nature: Adaptation and the Future of Human Life; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; ISBN 0262113228. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sandbrook, C.; Adams, W.M.; Monteferri, B. Digital Games and Biodiversity Conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2015, 8, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Barbosa, A.F.S.; Silva, F.G.M. Serious Games: Design and Development of OxyBlood. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Lisbon, Portugal, 8–11 November 2011; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wang, Q.; Sourina, O.; Nguyen, M.K. EEG-Based “Serious” Games Design for Medical Applications. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Cyberworlds, Singapore, 20–22 October 2010; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 270–276. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bergeron, B. Developing Serious Games (Game Development Series); Charles River Media, Inc.: Needham, MA, USA, 2005; ISBN 1584504447. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bouchard, B.; Imbeault, F.; Bouzouane, A.; Menelas, B.-A.J. Developing Serious Games Specifically Adapted to People Suffering from Alzheimer. In Proceedings of the Serious Games Development and Applications: 3rd International Conference, SGDA 2012, Bremen, Germany, 26–29 September 2012; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 243–254. [Google Scholar]
  46. Arts, K.; Van der Wal, R.; Adams, W.M. Digital Technology and the Conservation of Nature. Ambio 2015, 44, 661–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Fletcher, R. Gaming Conservation: Nature 2.0 Confronts Nature-Deficit Disorder. Geoforum 2017, 79, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Truong, M.-X.A.; Clayton, S. Technologically Transformed Experiences of Nature: A Challenge for Environmental Conservation? Biol. Conserv. 2020, 244, 108532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, M.-C.; Tsai, C.-C. Game-Based Learning in Science Education: A Review of Relevant Research. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2013, 22, 877–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. McGonigal, J. Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World; Penguin: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 1101475498. [Google Scholar]
  51. Cooper, H.M. Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews. Rev. Educ. Res. 1982, 52, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Toda, A.M.; Klock, A.C.T.; Oliveira, W.; Palomino, P.T.; Rodrigues, L.; Shi, L.; Bittencourt, I.; Gasparini, I.; Isotani, S.; Cristea, A.I. Analysing Gamification Elements in Educational Environments Using an Existing Gamification Taxonomy. Smart Learn. Environ. 2019, 6, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Toda, A.M.; Oliveira, W.; Klock, A.C.; Palomino, P.T.; Pimenta, M.; Gasparini, I.; Shi, L.; Bittencourt, I.; Isotani, S.; Cristea, A.I. A Taxonomy of Game Elements for Gamification in Educational Contexts: Proposal and Evaluation. In Proceedings of the IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Maceió, Brazil, 15–18 July 2019; Volume 2161, pp. 84–88. [Google Scholar]
  54. Oinas-Kukkonen, H.; Harjumaa, M. Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2009, 24, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cialdini, R.B.; Cialdini, R.B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion; Harper Collins: New York, NY, USA, 2007; Volume 55. [Google Scholar]
  56. Cialdini, R. Principles of Persuasion; Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ, USA; eBrand Media Publication: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  57. Fogg, B.J. A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Claremont, CA, USA, 26–29 April 2009; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  58. Banerjee, A.; Horn, M.S. Ghost Hunter: Parents and Children Playing Together to Learn about Energy Consumption. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction, Munich, Germany, 16–19 February 2014; pp. 267–274. [Google Scholar]
  59. Böhm, D.; Dorland, B.; Herzog, R.; Kap, R.B.; Langendam, T.S.L.; Popa, A.; Bueno, M.; Bidarra, R. How Can You Save the World? Empowering Sustainable Diet Change with a Serious Game. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on games (CoG), Copenhagen, Denmark, 17–20 August 2021; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  60. Brewer, R.S.; Verdezoto, N.; Holst, T.; Rasmussen, M.K. Tough Shift: Exploring the Complexities of Shifting Residential Electricity Use through a Casual Mobile Game. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, London, UK, 5–7 October 2015; pp. 307–317. [Google Scholar]
  61. Casals, M.; Gangolells, M.; Macarulla, M.; Fuertes, A.; Vimont, V.; Pinho, L.M. A Serious Game Enhancing Social Tenants’ Behavioral Change towards Energy Efficiency. In Proceedings of the Global Internet of Things Summit (Giots), Geneva, Switzerland, 6–9 June 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  62. Centieiro, P.; Romão, T.; Dias, A.E. A Location-Based Multiplayer Mobile Game to Encourage pro-Environmental Behaviours. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Lisbon, Portugal, 8–11 November 2011; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  63. Cowley, B.; Bateman, C. Green My Place: Evaluation of a Serious Social Online Game Designed to Promote Energy Efficient Behaviour Change. Int. J. Serious Games 2017, 4, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. De Vries, P.W.; Knol, E.; Qeam, B. V Serious Gaming as a Means to Change Adolescents’ Attitudes towards Saving Energy; Preliminary Results from the EnerCities Case. In Proceedings of the EDEN Annual Conference (1–5), Dublin, Ireland, 19–22 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dunn, M.E.; Shah, G.; Veríssimo, D. Stepping into the Wildeverse: Evaluating the Impact of Augmented Reality Mobile Gaming on Pro-conservation Behaviours. People Nat. 2021, 3, 1205–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fijnheer, J.D.L.; van Oostendorp, H.; Veltkamp, R. Household Energy Conservation Intervention: A Game versus Dashboard Comparison. Int. J. Serious Games 2019, 6, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fijnheer, J.D.; van Oostendorp, H.; Giezeman, G.-J.; Veltkamp, R.C. Competition in a Household Energy Conservation Game. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gamberini, L.; Corradi, N.; Zamboni, L.; Perotti, M.; Cadenazzi, C.; Mandressi, S.; Jacucci, G.; Tusa, G.; Spagnolli, A.; Björkskog, C. Saving Is Fun: Designing a Persuasive Game for Power Conservation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Lisbon, Portugal, 8–11 November 2011; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  69. Gamberini, L.; Spagnolli, A.; Corradi, N.; Jacucci, G.; Tusa, G.; Mikkola, T.; Zamboni, L.; Hoggan, E. Tailoring Feedback to Users’ Actions in a Persuasive Game for Household Electricity Conservation. In Proceedings of the Persuasive Technology, Design for Health and Safety: 7th International Conference, PERSUASIVE 2012, Linköping, Sweden, 6–8 June 2012; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 100–111. [Google Scholar]
  70. Geelen, D.; Keyson, D.; Boess, S.; Brezet, H. Exploring the Use of a Game to Stimulate Energy Saving in Households. J. Des. Res. 2012, 10, 102–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gustafsson, A.; Katzeff, C.; Bang, M. Evaluation of a Pervasive Game for Domestic Energy Engagement among Teenagers. Comput. Entertain. 2010, 7, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Hafner, R.J.; Fuertes Casals, A.; Pahl, S.; Boomsma, C.; Jones, R.V.; Casals Casanova, M.; Gangolells Solanellas, M. Results and Insight Gained from Applying the EnergyCat Energy-Saving Serious Game in UK Social Housing. Int. J. Serious Games 2020, 7, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hafner, R.J.; Pahl, S.; Jones, R.V.; Fuertes, A. Energy Use in Social Housing Residents in the UK and Recommendations for Developing Energy Behaviour Change Interventions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 251, 119643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hedin, B.; Lundström, A.; Westlund, M.; Markström, E. The Energy Piggy Bank—A Serious Game for Energy Conservation. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Internet and ICT for Sustainability (SustainIT), Funchal, Portugal, 6–7 December 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  75. Janakiraman, S.; Watson, S.L.; Watson, W.R. Exploring the Effectiveness of Digital Games in Producing Pro-Environmental Behaviors When Played Collaboratively and Individually: A Mixed Methods Study in India. TechTrends 2021, 65, 331–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Janakiraman, S.; Watson, S.L.; Watson, W.R.; Shepardson, D.P. Exploring the Influence of Digital Games on Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours Based on the New Ecological Paradigm Scale: A Mixed-Methods Study in India. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 15, 72–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Janakiraman, S.; Watson, S.L.; Watson, W.R.; Newby, T. Effectiveness of Digital Games in Producing Environmentally Friendly Attitudes and Behaviors: A Mixed Methods Study. Comput. Educ. 2021, 160, 104043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kimura, H.; Nakajima, T. Designing Persuasive Applications to Motivate Sustainable Behavior in Collectivist Cultures. PsychNology J. 2011, 9, 7–28. [Google Scholar]
  79. Lobo, P.; Romão, T.; Dias, A.E.; Danado, J.C. Smart Bins: An Educational Game to Encourage Recycling Activities. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction 2009 (part of MCCSIS 2009), Algarve, Portugal, 17–19 June 2009; pp. 155–162. [Google Scholar]
  80. Orland, B.; Ram, N.; Lang, D.; Houser, K.; Kling, N.; Coccia, M. Saving Energy in an Office Environment: A Serious Game Intervention. Energy Build. 2014, 74, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ouariachi, T.; Elving, W.J.L.; Pierie, F. Playing for a Sustainable Future: The Case of We Energy Game as an Educational Practice. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Ouariachi, T.; Elving, W. Understanding the Urgency and Complexities of the Energy Transition through Serious Gaming. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on e-Learning, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7–8 November 2019; pp. 461–466. [Google Scholar]
  83. Ouariachi, T.; Elving, W. Accelerating the Energy Transition through Serious Gaming: Testing Effects on Awareness, Knowledge and Efficacy Beliefs. Electron. J. E-Learn. 2020, 18, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Özgen, D.S.; Afacan, Y.; Surer, E. Save the Planets: A Multipurpose Serious Game to Raise Environmental Awareness and to Initiate Change. In Proceedings of the 6th EAI International Conference on Smart Objects and Technologies for Social Good, Online, 14–16 September 2020; pp. 132–137. [Google Scholar]
  85. Panagiotopoulou, L.; Cía Gayarre, N.; Scurati, G.W.; Etzi, R.; Massetti, G.; Gallace, A.; Ferrise, F. Design of a Serious Game for Children to Raise Awareness on Plastic Pollution and Promoting Pro-Environmental Behaviors. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2021, 21, 064502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rai, V.; Beck, A.L. Play and Learn: Serious Games in Breaking Informational Barriers in Residential Solar Energy Adoption in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 27, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Reeves, B.; Cummings, J.J.; Scarborough, J.K.; Yeykelis, L. Increasing Energy Efficiency with Entertainment Media: An Experimental and Field Test of the Influence of a Social Game on Performance of Energy Behaviors. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rogers, K.; Olah, M.; Weber, M. Textile Manager: Design and Development of a Persuasive Game about Sustainable Textile Production. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  89. Salvador, R.; Romão, T.; Centieiro, P. A Gesture Interface Game for Energy Consumption Awareness. In Proceedings of the Advances in Computer Entertainment: 9th International Conference, ACE 2012, Kathmandu, Nepal, 3–5 November 2012; pp. 352–367. [Google Scholar]
  90. Santos, B.; Romão, T.; Dias, A.E.; Centieiro, P. EVision: A Mobile Game to Improve Environmental Awareness. In Proceedings of the Advances in Computer Entertainment: 10th International Conference, ACE 2013, Boekelo, The Netherlands, 12–15 November 2013; pp. 380–391. [Google Scholar]
  91. Simon, J.; Jahn, M.; Al-Akkad, A. Saving Energy at Work: The Design of a Pervasive Game for Office Spaces. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, Ulm, Germany, 4–6 December 2012; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  92. Soekarjo, M.; van Oostendorp, H. Measuring Effectiveness of Persuasive Games Using an Informative Control Condition. Int. J. Serious Games 2015, 2, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Takayama, C.; Lehdonvirta, V.; Shiraishi, M.; Washio, Y.; Kimura, H.; Nakajima, T. Ecoisland: A System for Persuading Users to Reduce CO2 Emissions. In Proceedings of the Software Technologies for Future Dependable Distributed Systems, Tokyo, Japan, 17 March 2009; pp. 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  94. Tolias, E.; Costanza, E.; Rogers, A.; Bedwell, B.; Banks, N. IdleWars: An Evaluation of a Pervasive Game to Promote Sustainable Behaviour in the Workplace. In Proceedings of the Entertainment Computing-ICEC 2015—14th International Conference, ICEC 2015, Trondheim, Norway, 29 September–2 October 2015; pp. 224–237. [Google Scholar]
  95. Wang, K.; Tekler, Z.D.; Cheah, L.; Herremans, D.; Blessing, L. Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Augmented Reality Game Promoting Environmental Action. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yang, J.C.; Chien, K.H.; Liu, T.C. A Digital Game-Based Learning System for Energy Education: An Energy Conservation PET. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. TOJET 2012, 11, 27–37. [Google Scholar]
  97. Yang, J.C.; Lin, Y.L.; Liu, Y.-C. Effects of Locus of Control on Behavioral Intention and Learning Performance of Energy Knowledge in Game-Based Learning. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 23, 886–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Centieiro, P.; Romão, T.; Dias, A.E. Playing with the Environment. Playful User Interfaces: Interfaces that Invite Social and Physical Interaction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 47–69. [Google Scholar]
  99. Stern, P.C. Contributions of Psychology to Limiting Climate Change. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  100. Tucker, P. A Survey of Attitudes and Barriers to Kerbside Recycling. Environ. Waste Manag. 1999, 2, 55–63. [Google Scholar]
  101. Mekler, E.D.; Brühlmann, F.; Opwis, K.; Tuch, A.N. Do Points, Levels and Leaderboards Harm Intrinsic Motivation? An Empirical Analysis of Common Gamification Elements. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, Stratford, ON, Canada, 2–4 October 2013; pp. 66–73. [Google Scholar]
  102. Park, H.J.; Bae, J.H. Study and Research of Gamification Design. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Its Appl. 2014, 8, 19–28. [Google Scholar]
  103. Richter, G.; Raban, D.R.; Rafaeli, S. Studying Gamification: The Effect of Rewards and Incentives on Motivation. In Gamification in Education and Business; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 21–46. [Google Scholar]
  104. Wang, H.; Sun, C.-T. Game Reward Systems: Gaming Experiences and Social Meanings. In Proceedings of the DiGRA Conference, Hilversum, The Netherlands, 14–17 November 2011; Volume 114. [Google Scholar]
  105. Csikszentmihalyi, M. The Flow Experience and Its Significance for Human Psychology. In Optimal Experience Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  106. Burgers, C.; Eden, A.; van Engelenburg, M.D.; Buningh, S. How Feedback Boosts Motivation and Play in a Brain-Training Game. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 48, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Wang, H.; Wang, Y. Gender Differences in the Perception and Acceptance of Online Games. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2008, 39, 787–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Postma, D.W. Why Care for Nature? In Search of an Ethical Framework for Environmental Responsibility and Education; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; Volume 9, ISBN 1402050038. [Google Scholar]
  109. Parra, G.; Hansmann, R.; Hadjichambis, A.C.; Goldman, D.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D.; Sund, P.; Sund, L.; Gericke, N.; Conti, D. Education for Environmental Citizenship and Education for Sustainability. In Conceptualizing Environmental Citizenship for 21st Century Education; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 149–160. [Google Scholar]
  110. Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Jørgensen, F.A.; Jørgensen, D. Citizen Science for Environmental Citizenship. Conserv. Biol. 2021, 35, 1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Schild, R. Environmental Citizenship: What Can Political Theory Contribute to Environmental Education Practice? J. Environ. Educ. 2016, 47, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Lee, K. The Role of Media Exposure, Social Exposure and Biospheric Value Orientation in the Environmental Attitude-Intention-Behavior Model in Adolescents. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Pahl, S.; Wyles, K.J. The Human Dimension: How Social and Behavioural Research Methods Can Help Address Microplastics in the Environment. Anal. Methods 2017, 9, 1404–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Boomsma, C.; Hafner, R.; Pahl, S.; Jones, R.V.; Fuertes, A. Should We Play Games Where Energy Is Concerned? Perceptions of Serious Gaming as a Technology to Motivate Energy Behaviour Change among Social Housing Residents. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Reeves, B.; Geiger, S. Designing Experiments That Assess Psychological Responses to Media Messages. In Measuring Psychological Responses to Media Messages; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 1994; pp. 165–180. [Google Scholar]
  117. Van’t Riet, J.; Meeuwes, A.C.; van der Voorden, L.; Jansz, J. Investigating the Effects of a Persuasive Digital Game on Immersion, Identification, and Willingness to Help. Basic. Appl. Soc. Psych. 2018, 40, 180–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Prensky, M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think Differently? Horizon 2001, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mti 07 00080 g001
Figure 1. Examples of EC actions in a 4-axis system [16].
Figure 1. Examples of EC actions in a 4-axis system [16].
Mti 07 00080 g001
Mti 07 00080 g002
Figure 2. Flow diagram illustrating the review selection process.
Figure 2. Flow diagram illustrating the review selection process.
Mti 07 00080 g002
Mti 07 00080 g003
Figure 3. Distribution of research/academic institutions per country.
Figure 3. Distribution of research/academic institutions per country.
Mti 07 00080 g003
Mti 07 00080 g004
Figure 4. Distribution of EC actions per focus, sphere and dimension.
Figure 4. Distribution of EC actions per focus, sphere and dimension.
Mti 07 00080 g004
Table 1. Retrieving keywords.
Table 1. Retrieving keywords.
Game-Related KeywordsEC-Related Keywords
  • Serious game(s)
  • Digital game(s)
  • Behavio(u)r change game(s)
  • Persuasive game(s)
  • Impact game(s)
  • Game(s) for change
  • Attitudinal change/Attitude(s) change
  • Behavio(u)ral change/Behavio(u)r(s) change
  • Environmental citizenship
  • Environmental citizen(s)
  • Sustainable behavio(u)r(s)
  • Sustainability
  • Pro-environmental behavio(u)r(s)
  • Pro-environmental attitude(s)
  • Pro-environmental action(s)
Table 2. Overview of the reviewed empirical articles.
Table 2. Overview of the reviewed empirical articles.
N of Articles%
Type of publication
Journal article2352.3
Conference articles2147.7
Scope of journals/conferences
Computers/informatics1636.3
Environmental sciences1022.7
Education 613.6
Human–computer interaction511.4
Games511.4
Psychology12.3
Design12.3
Year of publication
2007–2011818.2
2012–20161329.5
2017–20212352.3
Table 3. Methodological aspects of the reviewed empirical articles *.
Table 3. Methodological aspects of the reviewed empirical articles *.
ArticlesResearch FocusStudy TypeGame TypeGame DurationSampleData Collection
1Banerjee et al. (2014) [58]Effectiveness
To evaluate the impact of BCG on engaging parents and children in learning about energy consumption in their homes		Qualitative case studyPervasive game
“Ghost hunter”		30–60 minMixed age
n = 22
  • Interviews
  • Video-recordings
2Bardhan et al. (2015) [13]Effectiveness
To present and evaluate a conceptual framework for the development of a BCG on waste management 		Pilot studyPoint-and-click game
“Trashwar”		90 s (per round)Non-adults
n = 70
  • Game-based performance
  • Observations
  • Surveys
3Böhmet al. (2021) [59]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on empowering players’ sustainable diet via a preliminary evaluation 		Pre-Posttest studyIdle game
“Veganity, your journey”		5 daysAdults
n = 10
  • Surveys
4Brewer et al. (2015) [60]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on encouraging players to reduce and shift their electricity use		User researchCausal game
“Share Buddy”		8 daysAdults
n = 32
  • Application logs
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Interviews
  • Surveys
Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on encouraging players to reduce and shift their electricity use		User researchCausal game
“Share Buddy”		3 weeksAdults
n = 30
  • Application logs
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Interviews
  • Surveys
5Casals et al. (2017) [61]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of the BCG on enhancing social tenants behavioral change towards energy efficiency in comparison with a control group		Experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game
  • Control condition: no game
3D virtual game
“Energy Cat: The House of Tomorrow”		n/aMixed age
n = 80 households (randomly assigned per condition)
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Surveys
6Centieiro et al. (2011) [62]Usability
To evaluate the usability, gameplay and persuasive effects on users of a BCG regarding waste management		User researchLocation-based game
“Gaea”		10 min
(per gaming session)		Mixed age
n = 15
  • Observations
  • Surveys
Usability
To evaluate the usability, gameplay and persuasive effects of a BCG regarding waste management		User researchLocation-based game
“Gaea”		15 min
(per gaming session)		Mixed age
n = 37
  • Observations
  • Surveys
7Cowley and Bateman (2017) [63]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on relative changes in energy savings in three test sites as well as players’ preferences, decisions and frequency of playing 		Pilot studySocial online game
“Green my place”		n/aAdults
n = 419
  • Application logs
  • Energy consumption measurements
Effectiveness
To assess the impact of the BCG on promoting pro-environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding energy conservation in comparison with a control group		Experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game
  • Control condition: no game
Social online game
“Green my place”		n/aAdults
n = 79
  • Surveys
8de Vries and Knol (2011) [64]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of the BCG on several energy-related attitudes in comparison with a control group		Experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game
  • Control condition: no game
3D virtual game
“EnerCities		15–45 minNon-adults
n = 653
(Experimental condition = 325/Control condition = 328)
  • Surveys
9Dunn et al. (2013) [65]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of the BCG on the participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and pro-conservation behaviors in relation to a comparison group deploying a conservation documentary		Experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game
  • Control condition: wildlife conservation documentary
AR game
“Wildverse”		3 hAdults
n = 182
(Experimental condition = 91/Control condition = 91)
  • Surveys
10Fijnheer et al. (2019) [66]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors with respect to energy
conservation in the household, in comparison with control group		Experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game
  • Control condition: dashboard
Point-and-click game
“Powersaver Game” 		5 weeksMixed age
n = 49
(21 households randomly assigned per condition)
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Surveys
11Fijnheer et al. (2021) [67]Design
To compare the impact of a BCG including a competition feature versus the same game excluding this feature with respect to energy
conservation in the household		Experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game with “competition”
  • Control condition: game with “no competition”
Point-and-click game
“Powersaver Game” 		5 weeksMixed age
n = 31 (18 households randomly assigned per condition)
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Surveys
12Fox et al. (2020) [38]Design
To compare the impact of BCG on pro-environmental behaviors, manipulating the design features of interactivity and contingency 		Experimental study
  • Condition 1: near contingent game
  • Condition 2: far contingent game
  • Condition 3: near non-contingent game
  • Condition 4: far non-contingent game
3D virtual game
“Recovery Rapids”		10 minAdults
n = 190
(Near contingent condition = 50/Far contingent condition = 46/Near non-contingent condition = 46/Far non-contingent condition = 48)
  • Surveys
13Gamberini et al. (2011) [68]Usability
To assess users’ satisfaction/
acceptance and usability of a BCG		User researchWeb-based game
“EnergyLife”		3 monthsMixed age
n = 24 (8 households)
  • Application logs
  • Interviews
  • Surveys
  • Usability tasks
14Gamberini et al. (2012) [69]Design
To describe the design of smart advice tips and to assess the impact of this tailoring strategy on users’ acceptance and electricity conservation behaviors		Field trialWeb-based game
“EnergyLife”		4 monthsMixed age
n = 10
  • Application logs
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Interviews
  • Surveys
15Gardeli et al. (2017) [37]Effectiveness
To present the development and an initial evaluation of a number of games and interactive systems for influencing users’ pro-environmental behaviors		User researchDigital game (2D)
“Bag to the future”/“Finding bags”		n/aNon-adults
n = n/a
  • Interviews
  • Observations
  • Surveys
  • Video-recordings
16Geelen et al. (2012) [70]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on household energy consumption and savings		Pilot studyPervasive game
“Energy Battle”		4 weeksMixed age
n = 20 households
(2–5 people per household)
  • Application logs
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Interviews
  • Surveys
17Gustafsson et al. (2010) [71]Effectiveness
To evaluate and analyze
a BCG designed to encourage energy conservation		Field trialPervasive game
“Power Agent”		10 daysMixed age
n = 6 players and their families
(in two teams)
  • Artifacts (i.e., pictures taken)
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Instant message conversations
  • Interviews
18Gustafsson et al. (2009) [30]Effectiveness
To investigate if a BCG
can achieve post game behavioral
effects regarding energy conservation		Field trialPervasive game
“Power Explorer”		7 daysNon-adults
n = 15
  • Application logs
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Interviews
  • Observations
  • Surveys
19Hafner et al. (2020a) [72]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on encouraging household energy reductions in the UK social housing sector in comparison with a control group		Quasi-experimental study
  • Experimental condition: Game
  • Control condition: No game
3D virtual game
“Energy Cat: the House of Tomorrow”		12 monthsMixed age
n = 82 households
(Experimental condition = 42 households/Control condition = 40 households)
  • Surveys
20Hafner et al. (2020b) [73]Effectiveness
To assess the factors affecting energy demand after using a BCG and the main psychological barriers that prevent users from using less energy		Qualitative case study3D virtual game
“Energy Cat: the House of Tomorrow”		12 monthsMixed age
n = 20 households
  • Interviews
21Hedin et al. (2017) [74]Effectiveness
To evaluate a BCG designed to help people learn how to use energy more efficiently, and to support behavior change toward more sustainable energy habits		Field trialPervasive game
“Energy Piggy Bank”		3 daysAdults
n = 39
  • Application logs
  • Surveys
22Janakiraman et al. (2021a) [75]Design
To compare the impact of a collaborative versus an individual-based BCG on students’ pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors		Quasi-experimental study
  • Condition 1: individual play
  • Condition 2: collaborative play
  • Control condition: no game
3D virtual game
“EnerCities”		50 min (for 2–3 rounds)Non-adults
n = 131
(Individual play condition = 45/Collaborative play condition = 44/Control condition = 42)
  • Game-based performance
  • Interviews
  • Observations
  • Surveys
23Janakiraman et al. (2021b) [76]Effectiveness
To explore the influence of a BCG on environmental attitudes and behaviors		Quasi-experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game
  • Control condition: no game
3D virtual game
“EnerCities”		50 min (for 2–3 rounds)Non-adults
n = 110
(Experimental condition = 64/Control condition = 36)
  • Interviews
  • Surveys
24Janakiraman et al. (2021c) [77]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG in producing environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviors		Quasi-experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game
  • Control condition: no game
3D virtual game
“EnerCities”		5 weeksAdults
n = 94
(Experimental condition = 52/Control condition = 42)
  • Game-based performance
  • Interviews
  • Surveys
25Kimura and Nakajima (2011) [78]Design
To explore the design, the strategies applied a BCG to encourage users to reduce their CO2 footprint		Pre-Posttest studyPervasive game
“Ecoland”		4 weeksMixed age
n = 6 households (20 participants)
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Surveys
  • Households’ reports
26Lobo et al. (2009) [79]Usability
To present the results of user tests regarding the usability of a BCG as well as its impact on encouraging recycling activities		User researchAR game
“Smart bins”		5 minNon-adults
n = 17
  • Observations
  • Surveys
27Orland et al. (2014) [80]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG in reducing plug loads in a mid-size commercial office in comparison with a control group		Quasi-experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game
  • Control condition: no game
Digital game (2D)
“Energy Chickens”		12 weeksAdults
n = 57
(Experimental condition = 41/Control condition = 16)
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Surveys
28Ouariachi et al. (2018) [81]Design
To analyze the communication and educational aspects of a BCG by making use of a validated framework for serious games analysis		Delphi studyRole-playing game
“We energy game”		n/aAdults
n = 13
  • Checklists
  • Surveys
Effectiveness
To assess the effectiveness of a BCG in achieving cognitive, affective, attitudinal and behavioral engagement on energy consumption		Qualitative case studyRole-playing game
“We energy game”		40 minAdults
n = 15
  • Group discussion
29Ouariachi et al. (2019) [82]Effectiveness
To assess the effectiveness of a BCG in achieving awareness and understanding of the complexity of energy transition		Pre-Posttest studyRole-playing game
“We energy game”		30 minAdults
n = 100
  • Surveys
30Ouariachi et al. (2020) [83]Effectiveness
To assess the effectiveness of a BCG on pro-environmental awareness, understanding and self-efficacy about energy conservation		Pre-Posttest studyRole-playing game
“We energy game”		30 minAdults
n = 100
  • Surveys
31Özgen et al. (2020) [84]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on users’ pro-environmental awareness, attitudes and behaviors		Pre-Posttest studyDigital game (2D)
“Save the planets”		n/aAdults
n = 22
  • Surveys
32Panagiotopoulou et al. (2020) [85]Usability
To qualitatively assess users’ satisfaction/acceptance and usability of a BCG		User researchDigital game (2D)
“Contact from the future”		n/aAdults
n = 15
  • Observations
  • Surveys
Usability
To quantitatively assess users’ satisfaction/acceptance and usability of a BCG		User researchDigital game (2D)
“Contact from the future”		n/aAdults
n = 7
  • Observations
  • Interviews
33Rai and Beck (2017) [86]Effectiveness
To assess the effectiveness of a BCG on solar energy adoption by residential energy customers in comparison to a control group		Experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game
  • Control condition: no game
Real-time trivia game
“Contact from the future”		2 weeksAdults
n = 103
(Experimental condition = 27/Control condition = 76)
  • Surveys
34Reeves et al. (2015) [87]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on energy efficient behaviors		Quasi-experimental study
  • Experimental condition: serious game
  • Control condition: entertainment game
Digital game (2D)
“Power House”		30 minAdults
n = 40
  • Observations
Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on the decrease of electricity usage		Field trialDigital game (2D)
“Power House”		17 daysAdults
n = 51
  • Energy consumption measurements
35Rogers et al. (2018) [88]Effectiveness
To assess the persuasive effects of a BCG on users’ sustainable consumption		Pre-Posttest studyPoint-and-click game
“Textile manager”		30 minAdults
n = 57
  • Application logs
  • Surveys
36Salvador et al. (2012) [89]Usability
To evaluate the usability, gameplay and effects on users of MAID		User researchGesture-based game
“MAID”		n/aMixed age
n = 26
  • Surveys
37Santos et al. (2013) [90]Usability
To evaluate the usability of a BCG as well as its impact on users’ environmental awareness and attitudes		User researchAR game
“eVision”		20 minAdults
n = 20
  • Surveys
38Simon et al. (2012) [91]Effectiveness
To introduce and evaluate a BCG on motivating energy-saving behavior in office spaces		Pilot studyPervasive game
“Climate Race”		10 daysAdults
n/a
  • Energy consumption measurements
  • Interviews
  • Surveys
39Soekarjo and Oostendorp (2015) [92]Effectiveness
To assess the impact of a BCG on energy related attitudes and behaviors in comparison with an informative control group		Experimental study
  • Experimental condition: game
  • Control condition: informative PowerPoint presentation
3D virtual game
“EnerCities		20 minAdults
n = 46
(Experimental condition = 23/Control condition = 23)
  • Surveys
40Takayama et al. (2009) [93]Effectiveness
To describe the concept and the theories behind a BCG, and provide preliminary results regarding its effectiveness		User researchPervasive game
“Ecoland”		4 weeksMixed age
n = 6 households
(20 participants)
  • Surveys
41Tolias et al. (2015) [94]Effectiveness
To introduce and evaluate a BCG designed to raise awareness and promote behavior change in relation to energy waste in the workplace		Field trialPervasive game
“IdleWars”		2 weeksAdults
n = 26		Mixed methods
  • Application logs
  • Group discussion
42Wang et al. (2021) [95]Effectiveness
To evaluate the impact of a BCG on pro-environmental knowledge and attitudes		Pre-Posttest studyAR game
“PEAR”		n/aAdults
n = 37
  • Surveys
43Yang et al. (2012) [96]Effectiveness
To examine how a BCG affects users’ self-awareness, learning motivation and willingness to conserve energy		Pre-Posttest studyDigital game (2D)
“ECOPET”		90 minAdults
n = 23
  • Surveys
  • Video-recordings
44Yang et al. (2017) [97]Effectiveness
To examine the effects of locus of control on behavioral intention
and learning performance of energy knowledge in the context of a BCG		Pre-Posttest studyDigital game (2D)
n/a		60 minAdults
n = 40
  • Surveys
44 reviewed articles presenting
50 empirical studies		N of studies per research focus
  • Effectiveness: 36
  • Usability: 8
  • Design: 6
N of studies per study type
Experimental research studies: 24
  • Pre-Posttest study: 9
  • Experimental study: 9
  • Quasi-experimental study: 6
Small-scale/Preliminary evaluation research studies: 26
  • User research: 12
  • Field trial: 6
  • Pilot study: 4
  • Qualitative case study: 3
  • Delphi study: 1
N of studies per game type
  • Pervasive game: 9
  • 3D virtual game: 9
  • Digital game (2D): 9
  • AR game: 4
  • Point-and-click game: 4
  • Role-playing game: 4
  • Web-based game: 2
  • Social online game: 2
  • Location-based game: 2
  • Causal game: 2
  • Real-time trivia game: 1
  • Gesture-based game: 1
  • Idle game: 1
N of studies per game duration
  • Short term (minutes to hours): 19
  • Medium term (days to month):13
  • Long term (months to year): 8
  • n/a: 10
N of studies per sample type
  • Adults: 28
  • Mixed age: 15
  • Non-adults: 7
N of studies per sample size
  • n < 30 players: 20
  • n = 30–100 players: 19
  • n > 100 players: 9
  • n/a: 2
N of studies per data collection measures
  • Surveys: 41
  • Interviews: 15
  • Energy Consumption measurements: 14
  • Observations: 10
  • Application logs: 10
  • Video-recordings: 3
  • Game-based performance: 3
  • Group discussion: 2
  • Checklists: 1
  • Usability tasks: 1
  • Households’ reports: 1
  • Instant message conversations: 1
  • Artifacts: 1
* Some articles reported in more than one empirical study that sometimes employed more than one study, game, samples, data collection methods, etc. In case information was not available in a reviewed article this is indicated with “n/a”.
Table 4. Overview of the gaming elements underpinning the reviewed BCGs.
Table 4. Overview of the gaming elements underpinning the reviewed BCGs.
Game ElementsN%
Performance/Measurement Elements4397.7
Points3579.5
Stats3272.7
Levels2556.8
Progression1534.1
Acknowledgment1022.7
Social Elements2965.9
Competition2659.1
Collaboration1636.4
Social Pressure511.4
Reputation00.0
Ecological Elements2965.9
Economy1534.1
Time Pressure920.5
Chance36.8
Imposed choice00.0
Rarity00.0
Personal Elements2863.6
Objectives2454.5
Puzzles1227.3
Sensation511.4
Novelty00.0
Renovation00.0
Fictional Elements1022.7
Narrative511.4
Storytelling511.4
Table 5. Overview of the persuasive mechanisms underpinning the reviewed BCGs.
Table 5. Overview of the persuasive mechanisms underpinning the reviewed BCGs.
Persuasive MechanismsN%
Dialogue Support44100.0
Rewards 3068.2
Suggestions2761.4
Praise1125.0
Liking511.4
Reminders49.1
Similarity00.0
Social role00.0
Primary Task Support3477.3
Simulation2352.3
Self-monitoring2045.5
Tunnelling613.6
Personalization511.4
Tailoring49.1
Reduction12.3
Rehearsal 12.3
Social Support2761.4
Competition 2659.1
Cooperation1636.4
Social comparison1227.3
Social facilitation715.9
Social learning613.6
Normative influence36.8
Recognition12.3
System Credibility Support511.4
Expertise511.4
Trustworthiness00.0
Surface credibility00.0
Real-world feel00.0
Authority00.0
Third-party endorsement00.0
Verifiability00.0
Table 6. Impact of the reviewed BCGs on EC knowledge, attitudes and behaviors.
Table 6. Impact of the reviewed BCGs on EC knowledge, attitudes and behaviors.
StudyKnowledgeAttitudesBehaviors
Banerjee et al. (2014) [58]+n/an/a
Bardhan et al. (2015) [13]+/−n/an/a
Bohm et al. (2021) [59]++n/a
Brewer et al. (2015) [60]+n/a−
Casals et al. (2017) [61]n/an/a+
Centieiro et al. (2011) [62]++n/a
Cowley and Bateman (2017) [63]−+/−+/−
De Vries and Knol (2011) [64]n/a+n/a
Dunn et al. (2013) [65]++−
Fijnheer et al. (2019) [66]+−+
Fijnheer et al. (2021) [67]+−+
Fox et al. (2020) [38]n/a++
Gamberini et al. (2011) [68]+n/an/a
Gamberini et al. (2012) [69]n/an/a+
Gardeli et al. (2017) [37]+n/an/a
Geelen et al. (2012) [70]n/an/a+/−
Gustafsson et al. (2010) [71]n/an/a+/−
Gustafsson et al. (2009) [30]+/−++
Hafner et al. (2020a) [72]−n/a−
Hafner et al. (2020b) [73]+/−n/a+/−
Hedin et al. (2017) [74]n/an/a+
Janakiraman et al. (2021a) [75]n/a++
Janakiraman et al. (2021b) [76]n/a++
Janakiraman et al. (2021c) [77]n/a++
Kimura and Nakajima (2011) [78]n/an/a+
Lobo et al. (2009) [79]++n/a
Orland et al. (2014) [80]n/an/a+
Ouariachi et al. (2018) [81]+−−
Ouariachi et al. (2019) [82]+n/an/a
Ouariachi et al. (2020) [83]++n/a
Özgen et al. (2020) [84]+++
Panagiotopoulou et al. (2020) [85]+n/an/a
Rai and Beck (2017) [86]+++
Reeves et al. (2015) [87]n/an/a+
Rogers et al. (2018) [88]++n/a
Salvador et al. (2012) [89]++n/a
Santos et al. (2013) [90]++n/a
Simon et al. (2012) [91]n/an/a+
Soekarjo and Oostendorp (2015) [92]−−n/a
Takayama et al. (2009) [93]+n/an/a
Tolias et al. (2015) [94]n/an/a+/−
Wang et al. (2021) [95]++n/a
Yang et al. (2012) [96]++n/a
Yang et al. (2017) [97]+++
44 articles29 articles
  • + impact: 23
  • − impact: 3
  • +/− impact: 3
24 articles
  • + impact: 19
  • − impact: 4
  • +/− impact: 1
26 articles
  • + impact: 17
  • − impact: 4
  • +/− impact: 5
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Georgiou, Y.; Hadjichambis, A.C.; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D.; Adamou, A. “From Gamers into Environmental Citizens”: A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on Behavior Change Games for Environmental Citizenship. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2023, 7, 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti7080080

AMA Style

Georgiou Y, Hadjichambis AC, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi D, Adamou A. “From Gamers into Environmental Citizens”: A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on Behavior Change Games for Environmental Citizenship. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction. 2023; 7(8):80. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti7080080

Chicago/Turabian Style

Georgiou, Yiannis, Andreas Ch. Hadjichambis, Demetra Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, and Anastasia Adamou. 2023. "“From Gamers into Environmental Citizens”: A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on Behavior Change Games for Environmental Citizenship" Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 7, no. 8: 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti7080080

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop