A Climate Change Board Game for Interdisciplinary Communication and Education

Abstract

This article reports and reflects on the design and use of the board game KEEP COOL on climate change. The game covers and integrates central biophysical, economic, and political aspects of the issue. By using a board game as common language between students and scientists from different scientific cultures, knowledge of different disciplines can be integrated and different views can be discussed. Thus, even complex issues such as the free-rider problem, trade-offs between adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, and path dependencies can be studied. KEEP COOL is the first game on climate change that is readily available from a commercial publisher. It has successfully been used in multiple settings, for example, as a tool for interdisciplinary research, public relations, public understanding of science, and, in particular, teaching. The experience with the game indicates that it can be effectively used in seminars with students to obtain a holistic picture of the issue and to lay out a common language for deeper reflections on climate change. This contribution also identifies some pitfalls and essential instruments for its adequate use for teaching.

Keywords

adaptation climate change communication free-rider problem game design hazard impact of climate change interdisciplinarity international environmental agreements KEEP COOL language media mitigation negotiations public good public understanding of science

Climate change is an interdisciplinary challenge for society. Developing and negotiating strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the adaptation to the inevitable impacts of climate change requires adequate knowledge of climatology, other natural sciences, and new technologies, as well as new social organization. Instruments and institutions for coping with climate change can be situated on local up to global scales. International relations and economic structures matter when impacts of a changing climate and strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are assessed. These different facets of the challenge, addressed in different disciplines across scientific cultures and located on different scales in time, space, and organization are additionally complicated by ubiquitous uncertainties (on the sensitivity of the climate system to greenhouse gas emissions, on local impacts, on future climate policies, etc.). Such interdisciplinary research has its own problems (see, for example, Hirsch-Hadorn et al., 2008). For example, discipline-specific scientific jargon and practices can hinder communication between scientists from different scientific cultures. In addition, we see an increasing need for improved communication processes at the science-policy interface, to link interdisciplinary research with current policy instruments for approaching the problem. In response to these needs, some scholars call for a new transdisciplinary or postnormal science (e.g., Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). Public understanding of science also plays a crucial role here. In particular, capacity building for dealing with climate change requires teaching core knowledge on climate change. As a guide for policy-relevant research and action, an overview of this complex problem is crucial.

This article introduces the board game KEEP COOL (2004), and assesses how a board game on climate change can help in inter- and transdisciplinary communication. KEEP COOL was released in 2004 and has frequently been used for different communications and educational purposes since then. It was developed by scientists (the author of this article being one of them) at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. I report on the design and use of this game, give grounded suggestions for its facilitation, and evaluate the experience with the game.

The design of KEEP COOL was motivated by the need to provide an instrument for dialogue between scientists, students, and the general public. Potential target audiences are families, students, journalists, and politicians, environmentally concerned and game enthusiasts, consultants, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). It can be used for various purposes including awareness raising, public relations, science communication, interdisciplinary team building, education, and stakeholder dialogues. A board game was seen as particularly useful for these objectives because

a game creates a new, but easy to understand language for its players, which is rooted in common gaming experience and can serve as a starting point to introduce particular terminology necessary for an understanding of climate change (Reckien & Eisenack, 2010)

a simulation game requires the simplification of the subject matter in order to focus on central issues

simulation games are known as excellent learning tools (e.g., Gosen & Washbush, 2004), in particular in interdisciplinary settings (e.g., Clark, Gjerde, & Skinner, 2003; Crookall, 2010)

games have a positive connotation, so that conveying the serious issue of climate change by these means may open new communication channels

a board game is a tangible and visually attractive product that can be used as an entry point and tool for communication

Games are known to have an ice-breaking capacity and open up dynamic participation; they lessen resistance to novel ideas and stimulate interest in the new issue by supporting group discussion (Petranek, 1994). Although, compared with standard teaching methods, empirical evidence for improved learning of declarative knowledge through game playing is ambivalent and suggests that it depends on other factors (e.g., facilitation skills), games are known to be effective in enhancing motivation and increasing student interest (Druckman, 1995; Garris, Ahlers, & Diskell, 2002). Empirical studies show that different disciplinary backgrounds of students participating in a gaming exercise have only limited influence on the perceived learning results (Diehl, 1991). This indicates that games are a good common ground for a mixed group of students from different subjects. However, the literature on simulation games for teaching emphasizes that the effect of gaming exercises crucially depends on a subsequent debriefing, as processing of experience is necessary to provide insight (e.g., Lederman, 1992).

In a game session of KEEP COOL, three to six players, aged 12 and above, represent groups of countries such as Europe, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), or the Developing Countries. For 1 to 2 hours, they can choose between black and green growth, but also have to adapt to inevitable climate impacts like droughts or floods, which become increasingly severe as global mean temperature rises. Lobby groups like the oil industry or environmental groups have to be taken into account. The winner is the player who most effectively reconciles climate protection with particular interests. If some players are too ruthless, everybody loses. The game thus sets up a fun way of communicating the complexities of a sustainability issue, integrating economic, environmental, and political goals, to students and the public at large. Based on these ideas, the game simulates an international arena of groups of nation states where negotiations, knowledge, and financial transfers play a central role. It is complemented by an economic module, where high- or low-emitting factories can be built (representing economic growth). Moreover, investments in R&D and in generalized adaptation measures can be made (taking account for learning-by-doing and knowledge spillover). Based on the emissions of the factories, the game keeps track of the global mean temperature, which influences the probabilities and strength of climate impacts. The game links results from diverse scientific activities (in particular from climatology, economics, and political science). Via its basic mechanisms, a free-rider problem is set up, where different strategic options (e.g., ignore/mitigate/adapt) and institutions (e.g., insurance, emissions trading, technology transfer) can be tested, discussed, or even invented. Although the gaming options provided by KEEP COOL are complex, it is easy to start a session as all options build on the same basic core rules. A facilitated game can start after 10 to 20 minutes of instruction. More time is needed for debriefing a game session or for playing the game multiple times for exploring its possibilities.

Environmental and sustainability issues are the subject of many simulation games. Ulrich (1997) provided an overview of 31 simulation games in this general field. Games such as FISH BANKS (1989) are well known. Since then, the field has expanded exponentially. Alone for the more specific issue of climate change, Reckien and Eisenack (2012) find more than 50 simulation games released between 1992 and 2011. The early contribution of Robinson and Ausubel (1983) is important in the present context, as it already provides a systematic overview of interlinked climate-change issues from different scientific disciplines that might be picked out as theme of a game. The global perspective of negotiating greenhouse gas emission reductions was taken up as a theme for climate-change simulation games first (e.g., Parson, 1996). Other early games have complex simulation components (e.g., SUSCLIME, 1998), come as a tool kit for facilitators (e.g., SURFING GLOBAL CHANGE, 2006) or as simple computer games (e.g., KLIMASCHUTZBASIS NOCOZWO, 2003). To my knowledge, KEEP COOL is the first board game on climate change and the first that is available from a commercial publisher.

The resonance from media after the release of the first edition of the game in 2004 was positive. This spurred further communication and game development activities (see below). The game’s potential has already been explored in different settings. Ludewig, Bednarczyk, and Lichtenheldt (2006) compare the teaching effect of using KEEP COOL with conventional teaching methods in an experiment with 10- to 12-year-old students. Their observations indicate that teaching is slightly more effective when using the game, in particular for girls. Nawrath, Lembcke, and Gerstengarbe (2007) report on using the game in an environmental education project, where it was a preparatory exercise for a large climate conference role-play with more than 100 students (age 16-17). The experiment by Kato, Iida, Sugiura, and Arakawa (2007) observed the communication processes during game sessions with Japanese university students in detail. While much talk in the beginning of the game is about the rules, communicating game moves becomes increasingly intensive later. They find that most discussions about strategic issues and reflection about the game occur in a break that they introduced to the middle of the game. Luttinen (2010) critically assess game strategies for KEEP COOL with mathematical considerations. Morimura and Iida (2010) assess the capabilities of teaching English to Japanese university students through the bilingual game. They come to positive conclusions, in particular, if international students participate in the negotiation activities.

This article begins with a description of the game design and its objectives. After reporting the different communication uses of the game and describing a typical seminar setup for teaching with KEEP COOL, I evaluate the game and present insights that might help to use it effectively. The conclusions elaborate on the role of the game as a communications tool.

Game Design

Design Objectives

The design objectives of KEEP COOL are diverse, as the game is made to serve multiple purposes. It was crucial to

stimulate interest and motivation into the issue of climate change

provide a positive game experience, with an appealing graphical design

make the game available to a wide range of people

The game should serve as a tool:

to enhance public understanding of climate change science

for public relations by raising awareness of public, scientific, and environmental organizations

for teaching students of different ages

to further interdisciplinary communication within science

The design of the game was thus guided by the following objectives:

as a practical exercise among scientists, to integrate knowledge from different scientific disciplines, and from important interfaces between them

to provide a broad overview of the problems, mechanisms, challenges, and opportunities related to climate change

to introduce basic relevant terminology, including (a) established terms used to discuss climate change within and across scientific disciplines, and (b) game terminology, as a common ground for communication among a variety of audiences and students with different backgrounds

to convey declarative knowledge on climate change (see Table 1 for a nonexclusive list). The focus is on

basic climate dynamics and climate change impacts

economic investment decisions relating to climate-change strategies

international relations and the activities of lobby groups

to convey systemic knowledge, by giving participants the opportunity to experience and reflect on central challenges such as the free-rider problem, power relations, and agenda setting

Table 1.

Substantial Issues Included via Game Elements.

The difference between weather and climate	Options to adapt to a changing climate
Natural climate change, in particular, due to solar and volcanic activity	Strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions
Ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon	The role of technological change
Climate effects of land-use change	International climate negotiations
A range of potential climate change impacts	Principal multinational coalitions taking part in the negotiations
The existence of some benefits from climate change	The role of NGOs and lobby pressure
	The free-rider problem

Note: NGOs = nongovernmental organizations.

It is obvious that some of these objectives cannot be incorporated directly in a game (i.e., by introducing particular cards, tokens, or rules, etc.) without making it overcomplex. This is particularly the case for the last objective.

Some basic decisions were made about the ground rules for the design of KEEP COOL:

It should be a board and not a computer game, as face-to-face communication is a more appropriate way to simulate real-world climate negotiations. Moreover, a face-to-face game encourages discussion and questioning; thereby, direct experience from the game provides a natural starting point for debriefing.

The scientific background has to be simplified as far as possible. Some key features of climate change were chosen, and we focused on important processes rather than on quantitative details. The aim was that as many game elements as possible should refer to real-world processes selected as relevant, but not to represent these processes in detail. Players should learn what climate change is about, rather than gaining expert knowledge of particular issues.

Players without interest in the topic should also have fun; therefore, the game has to incorporate dramatic decisions and competitive elements. This makes the game more interesting and a more intense experience, providing the motivation for repeated game sessions. Therefore, the game rules are strictly separated from scientific background information.

Design Details

The developing phase of the game started with very volatile rules and workshop setups. We had testing sessions with scientists from different disciplines, adult game enthusiasts, students of different ages (from 10 to 25), and educated adults. Development ended with an unguided test, where testers received a prototype game kit with instructions and an evaluation sheet. The final game comes as a typical board game box, which can be ordered from a publisher (KEEP COOL). Facilitated games, in particular with NGOs, schools, and at university seminars, have been intensively performed and widely documented.

The game is structured around international negotiations, and players have the opportunity to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements. Each player represents an alliance of states with similar interests that is involved in the real-world climate negotiations. No international climate policy regime is prescribed at the onset of the game. The negotiations are fueled by the tension between the common problem of climate change and individual interests, represented by cards that represent lobby pressure. Thus, during the game, a free-rider problem emerges, where players have to choose between cooperation and defection. Different coalitions of players may emerge. This reflects typical problems of real-world climate negotiations and introduces a dramatic element into the game.

Around this key element, a range of secondary features are included. To mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, players can transform their energy systems by investing in technologies with low emissions. In addition, R&D activities are possible and learning-by-doing effects are incorporated. Natural causes of climate change such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions are also part of the game. Global mean temperature is tracked during the game and changes as a consequence of economic decisions taken by players and natural climate variation. Adaptation measures are possible in order to reduce the damage caused by climate change, which increases nonlinearly with the global mean temperature. Different types of damage illustrate the range of impacts on economy and society. These are not evenly distributed between industrialized and Developing Countries, so development issues are also touched upon.

The game board is a map of the world, where country alliances are colored. Each player gets a country panel providing game-relevant economic information, in particular economic targets and investment costs. These decrease if a player decides to specialize in one particular technology, thus introducing path dependencies into the game. In addition, each player draws a target card at the start of the game, making it necessary to satisfy certain lobby interests (e.g., the oil industry, insurance companies, or development aid), which are portrayed as transnational actors.

Three types of tokens can be placed on the board. Black factories represent greenhouse gas emitting energy production, and green factories are low-emission technologies (nuclear power is excluded for simplification). A player can decarbonize her economy by voluntarily removing black tokens and buying new green ones. Protection tokens represent (generalized) measures taken to adapt to climate change and to reduce its damage. Global mean temperature is indicated by a so-called carbometer, a stick where chips are piled up to a certain level. During the game, chips are removed or added to the carbometer, depending on greenhouse gas emissions caused by the players and natural processes. This occurs during a climate regeneration game move. Impacts are determined by greenhouse cards drawn randomly and calculated based on the global mean temperature and the number on a rolled dice. Most impacts incur costs on a particular player, but some also produce benefits. These are paid in game currency, called carbon chips, which are earned by operating green and black factories.

The game is played in clockwise order. During her turn, the player can decide to invest in different types of factories, to buy protection tokens, undertake R&D, or remove factories, all paid for in-game currency. It is a central game rule that players are allowed to negotiate about everything, for example, to compensate mitigation efforts of other players by side payments or to invest in new factories in other countries (simulating foreign direct investment, but also the clean development and joint implementation instruments under the Kyoto Protocol, or a potential technology protocol). However, such negotiations are not mandatory, and the game starts from a situation where no international agreement is in force. It is completely up to the players whether they develop a bi- or multilateral climate protection strategy. Depending on the target cards, there may be additional incentives for international agreements that counteract climate protection. Therefore, a different scenario emerges in each game, for example, depending on whether the umbrella group led by the United States chooses to promote renewable energy. The game is won by the player who attains her targets first. However, to underline the importance of the free-rider problem of climate protection, the game is lost by all if the global mean temperature increases above a certain level.

KEEP COOL as a Communication Tool

This section focuses on the experience with the game in nonteaching settings. (The following sections present a more in-depth presentation of its use in formal education.)

Scientific Communication Among Disciplines

Scientific colleagues expressed a broad interest in the development of the game. This was fostered by an enabling environment in an interdisciplinary research institute. Contributions in the form of advice and participation as test players were received, inter alia, from colleagues in the agricultural sciences, climatology, ecology, economics, physics, political science, and sociology (in alphabetical order). In practice, scientists used game elements and rules as a common language to discuss game design and scientific issues of climate change. This common language enabled discussions about the game between scientists from different disciplines, allowed misconceptions held be colleagues, and misconceptions embodied in prototype versions of the game to be resolved. The participants also proposed further issues for inclusion, and used the language created by the game (in its earlier versions) to convey their specific viewpoints without having recourse to very specific scientific terminology. For example, they talked about factories instead of gross domestic product or carbon chips instead of carbon dioxide equivalents. The game thus provided common ground for communication among scientists from different scientific backgrounds. The game (with fluid rules at this stage) was used to explore the effects of bringing different suggested issues (from different scientific viewpoints) together. This also led to discussions about the relevance of some issues suggested for inclusion into the game. Not unsurprisingly, in these testing sessions, we discovered a tendency to suggest further extensions of the game, as scientists wanted to see their specific areas of research represented. Including them all would have made the game intractable. However, the group discussions about proposed extensions also helped to inform final decisions on how to simplify the game. After the release, we witnessed further recognition in the scientific community (Jones, 2005). The game elements are also frequently used as a metaphor to discuss different ideas in the scientific field.

Public Relations

The release of the game was accompanied by a small press campaign by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Although the issue of climate change received, on average, less attention before 2006 than today, the release got very good media coverage in the Internet, local and national press, radio, and television. Some journalists reported two reasons, in particular, for their interest: The game provides an alternative and new approach to the issue, and it delivers new and positive pictures (people playing and colorful cards instead of pictures of smokestacks and hazards). One national German radio program broadcast a game session played by a whole school class (Budde, 2004). Another example of media coverage was a dramaturgical production made for a science magazine on television, where professional actors played the roles in the game (RBB, 2004). The second edition (2005) got even more media coverage. It must be assumed that this was due to the headline of the press release, “Success for the board game KEEP COOL” (PIK, 2005, translation). Like the first edition, subsequent ones (the third edition is already sold out) have also been used to facilitate cooperation among different scientific institutes, private firms (e.g., in the business of carbon offsetting), and public agencies. A number of organizations used the game for their public relations work, in particular as a giveaway or for other uses reported in this article. Examples are the German Ministry for the Environment, the British Embassy in Germany, the Leibniz Gesellschaft (a large German consortium of scientific institutes), several environmental NGOs, and companies or company unions in the renewables sector.

Public Understanding of Science

The existence of KEEP COOL inspired organizers of exhibitions and other events to use it as an exhibit or attraction. It was presented at fairs for teachers, national environmental campaigns, and community exhibitions (see, for example, Figure 1), and multiple long science nights in Germany, where all scientific organizations in a region present their research to the general public. We also received invitations from companies that wanted to host workshops based on the game, and invitations from political foundations. The potential of the game is, again, frequently, seen to be the alternative approach that it provides to the issue of climate change. Furthermore, the game is used as a tangible and haptic exhibit. It can thus replace or complement standard slide presentations as a new format. The developers of the game received many invitations to give public presentations based on the game to students of different ages, local Agenda 21 groups, companies, and NGOs. Finally, in events and workshops, the basic setup of the game was used for a dramaturgical production with teenagers (e.g., Boehm, 2010).

Figure 1.

Game presentation and playing session at a fair of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment (August 26, 2006).

KEEP COOL spurred further activities beyond that. As about 6,000 games have so far been sold to individuals or organizations, undoubtedly many unreported sessions of the game have been conducted. Many sessions have been facilitated in different ways. A more simply designed, do-it-yourself version was distributed by the German Ministry for the Environment (BMU, 2004) via the Internet. Events were organized with large groups of students, for example, six professors playing the game in front of an audience of students, who could influence the moves by making statements giving their opinion (Oikos, 2009). Some research about the effectiveness of using the game for teaching was undertaken (see “Introduction”). In response to findings, some extended teaching material was prepared to accompany the game. The game was used in advanced training courses for teachers and training courses for professionals in NGOs. It was incorporated into wider environmental education projects, such as the annual climate days with KEEP COOL in some Berlin schools, and also won an award from the United Nations World Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (Schulze, 2006). The game is also a module of some educational projects developed by foundations that bring together scientists and teachers (e.g., Robert Bosch Stiftung, 2006). A more recent spin-off project is an online version called KEEP COOL ONLINE (2009), where a facilitator (e.g., a teacher) sets up a game session that is simultaneously played by six persons or groups via the Internet. Accompanying research has, however, shown that it is quite difficult to convey the complex content of the game through such a medium, although it strongly motivates students (Teichmann, 2010).

Educational Use

This section outlines how KEEP COOL can be used in an educational setting. The consistent results obtained by facilitated games with students are somewhat in contrast to games in other settings, in particular public events, where the efficiency of a game as a tool for learning or reflection, and the nature of lessons learned by the participants, differ strongly depending on the background of the group.

In an educational setting, learning follows an experiential approach, which starts from participants’ affective and cognitive experiences during the game. To turn this into knowledge, reflection on the experience is central. The importance given to the debriefing process is based on two assumptions. First, that the experience of participation has affected the participants in some way, and second that reflection is necessary to provide insight from the experience (Lederman, 1992).

Gameplay

In a standard setup, the game is played by 5 to 25 students over 1 to 2 hours, including initial instructions by a facilitator. An in-depth facilitated debriefing of KEEP COOL takes at least another 1 or 2 hours, so that at least two sessions are needed. As an alternative, it is preferable to choose a 4-hour block so that the experience is still fresh during debriefing. It is helpful if some students voluntarily get a game kit 1 week in advance so that they can get acquainted with the game rules.

It can be valuable to start a whole semester course with the game, as seminar participants will know each other better afterward. It can also be played repeatedly in later sessions to consolidate knowledge from other teaching sessions. The game can also be used in seminars on broader topics, where climate change is just used as an example.

The only resources needed are one game kit per six participants. An educational supplement is a short reader, which provides basic information on the issue and relates various game elements to reality (Wirsing & Eisenack, 2004). A detailed facilitation and debriefing guide is available from the author.

In the beginning of the session, the facilitator explains the basic game elements, while the players put the appropriate tokens on the table. This takes about 10 minutes, and although the complete rules are not known to participants yet, it is enough to let the first player make her move. During this first move, the player is guided step by step, so that all players learn the rules simultaneously. In later game moves, the facilitator is on hand to answer game questions when something is unclear. It is recommended for efficiency and enjoyment not to explain particular rules for uncommon situations at this stage; such rules are only introduced if and when they become relevant. Explaining the rules is independent from teaching the climate-change issue, which does not need to be introduced before the game. However, as players get more and more used to the rules, they usually begin asking questions about why some rules are as they are. Some game elements are especially designed to provoke such questions. The facilitator gives a direct response to questions that can be answered briefly. More complicated questions are collected and answers are postponed to the debriefing phase.

The session goes on until every group has finished the game, be it with winners or with all participants losing. Groups that finish earlier are allowed to observe games of other groups or to start a second game. When the last group finalizes its first game, debriefing starts.

Debriefing

Generally, the debriefing process can be divided into three phases: (a) introduction, (b) self-reflection, and (c) intensification of the analysis and generalization (Lederman, 1992). Debriefing is also important to prevent some potential misconceptions. The game is designed so that all players have approximately even chances to win, although the initial conditions are quite different, for example, for Europe or for the Developing Countries. The facilitator has to explain some game artifacts (discussed below) to avoid mistakes in transferring lessons from the game experience to reality. As first questions about climate change are provoked by game elements explicitly designed for this purpose, a part of the reflection will already have occurred during the game.

However, the formal debriefing brings together the whole group. In a short start-up phase, every participant gets the opportunity to express her feelings about the game. Usually, some players are strongly affected by the game, so this is necessary before reflective work. In many cases, the groups discuss who won, why some or all players lost, and why the global change scenario emerged during the game in the way it did.

Further reflection is based on these first comments and on the questions and observations collected during the game. Other issues are avoided, except when essential questions were not asked by participants or problematic artifacts have to be discussed. The term artifacts refers to game elements or game dynamics that do not correspond to the subject matter that is simulated by the game. Every simulation game has such artifacts, as it abstracts from its content and introduces new mechanisms due to the requirement of being a game, and not reality. This is analogous to formal or computer models (Stachowiak, 1973). Examples for artifacts in KEEP COOL are as follows:

The game focuses on important interdependencies, but quantities (e.g., damages from climate impacts or the relation between greenhouse gas emissions and global mean temperature) are not based on scientific findings. They simplify reality, but at the same time are designed to create dramatic situations in the game.

The Developing Countries have a particular bonus, reflecting land-use changes. However, this bonus makes their negotiation power much stronger than in real-world climate negotiations. This is a compromise to avoid frustration for the player taking that role.

The situation that all players lose when a certain threshold is passed may suggest that something like a climate collapse occurs. To avoid catastrophism, it is important to communicate that this is not expected to happen in real life.

It is valuable to start the reflection phase by discussing various game elements and their relation to reality. This provides an overview, provokes further questions, and generates declarative knowledge. It is not always obvious which game elements are easily decoded by the participants, so the facilitator should ask questions to elucidate this. The exercise is also fundamental to achieve the advanced learning objectives, as these relate to the ability to use basic game experience as an input for more complex reflections. For the introduction phase and subsequent clarification of questions and game elements, about 1 hour is needed.

A second hour—if available—is used for a detailed discussion of a selected more advanced theme. If the seminar is large enough, it can be split into several groups for teamwork, each group focusing on one advanced theme and reporting to the plenum in the end. Examples for advanced themes are as follows:

What is the free-rider problem, and what can be done about it?

Compare basic strategies to address climate change: ignore, mitigate, adapt.

Interdisciplinarity: What interfaces between disciplines are important?

In group work, participants are encouraged to draw on their game experience as well as their previous knowledge. They can thus learn from each other and those players who have not thought about climate change before can contribute to the discussion with their observations from the game. The facilitator can intervene by commenting on statements in the discussion which correspond to real-world issues of climate change or can ask questions related to the observed game dynamics. She can ask about

reasons for building black and green factories or investing in protection tokens during the game

decisions and processes that are likely to stabilize or erode the climate

distribution of costs and benefits among players

coalitions of actors that emerge during the game

causes for regime changes during the game

suggestions for extensions or modifications to the game

Evaluation

Experience with the game comprises sessions with a variety of players with different educational levels under different conditions. Game sessions have been played by families, students, pupils, scientists, journalists, consultants, game experts, and at public events. This evaluation focuses on the educational use.

The evaluation is based on many game sessions with students (age 15-18) at different schools, and with students (age 20-30) at four German universities. The latter sessions were parts of seminars in economics, geography, physics, political science, and sustainability-related courses. The evaluation in this section analyzes information obtained mainly by participant observation and facilitation experience. This is complemented by replies to qualitative email questionnaires distributed before and/or after the game; the questionnaire contains open questions about basic knowledge, problem framing, and interdisciplinary perspectives. This section also draws on communicated experience from other facilitators. Based on this analysis, the section concludes with some hypotheses about the effective use of KEEP COOL.

Most students grasp the rules of the game very fast, but it usually takes one or two moves until an intense communication and negotiation phase starts. It seems that differences in getting into the game mainly relate to players’ experiences with board games in general. Moreover, some participants seem skeptical about the use of a game in serious teaching. On the other hand, disciplinary background and previous knowledge have little influence on how quickly players get into the game.

After the rules have been clarified, substantial questions often arise. For example, players may ask why a certain rule is as it is, or suggest corrections or modifications of the rules. Such suggestions may be justified or not, but can be used to correct misconceptions or discuss further issues. In many cases, the facilitator will also observe knowledge deficits from the communication between players. These provide valuable triggers for short explanations during the game or can be noted down as topics for the debriefing. Typical short questions are related to

the combination of countries each player represents (international coalitions)

reasons for the regeneration of the climate after each move (ocean sink)

the meaning of various climate impact cards

the effects of volcanic eruptions on the climate

the meaning of protection tokens and their increasing costs (various adaptation measures)

influence of mitigation strategies, for example, why building green factories has no direct effect on emissions if black factories are not removed

All this indicates that learning is already initiated during the game. In most cases, it is easy to respond to these questions within the context of the game without making extensive use of scientific terminology. The game creates its own simple terminology, which can be used as a starting point for students’ research in different scientific directions. Students with more experience or knowledge of the issue often enjoy inventing new international agreements. Others try hard to make their personal political attitudes become reality within the game to change the real-world conditions they observe, for example, by giving the United States the global lead role in greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, or to test out being a bad guy by not caring about climate change at all. If the participants know each other well, elements of role-play are sometimes spontaneously introduced by the players into the sessions, such as, by speaking with an accent. It can be observed that tension increases when several players are close to achieving their targets. First discussions after the game usually concentrate on the strategic aspects of winning the game. Overall, in most sessions, players are in some way affected by the game. This is often confirmed when they are asked directly after the game if they had fun.

Feedback after debriefing mostly shows satisfying results. Most groups enjoy playing the game and agree that they would like to play the game again. It is often recognized that much information is hidden in the game that could not be revealed at the start. In order to explore these options, it is often suggested to play the game repeatedly and with different co-players. This should allow for deeper insights, as less time needs to be spent learning rules and previous game experience can be utilized to improve gaming performance, thereby, revealing additional or more sophisticated strategies to cope with climate change. Alternative climate regimes and instruments for climate protection can be explored in experimental game sessions with improvised extra rules, or where some players have a prescribed strategy or target card. We have little observed experience of this yet, but it is notable that groups that play the game several times tend to create increasingly complex institutional arrangements.

When asked whether they had learned something new, players often express little surprise about what they experienced during the game. They frequently relate game elements to their claimed prior knowledge of climate change. Thus, the game succeeds in providing an overview of knowledge, which is already available to the participants to some degree, but scattered. On the other hand, such claims to prior knowledge by students often contradict the facilitator’s observations during the game, when typically many substantial questions are asked or misconceptions appear. This underpins the need for a debriefing phase to make learning conscious. In some sessions, where debriefing had to be canceled for organizational reasons, students were more critical about the learning effectiveness of the game. During debriefing, it becomes clear in many cases that not all game elements are decoded correctly. In many cases, comments of students during the game and at the end of debriefing also indicate a shift in the relevance assigned to different scientific issues related to climate change. For example, some students of physics or geoecology start thinking about how to analyze bargaining situations and wondering what social sciences could contribute to that.

Shifts in problem framing can be sometimes observed. Many students who have prior knowledge start thinking about adaptation strategies, whereas before the game they focus mainly on greenhouse gas emission reductions. After the game, players often see strong actors like the United States as having a more important role in solving the problems of climate change, whereas before the game the opinion is that a common effort by all actors is necessary. Players estimate the costs of climate change to be higher after the game, but at the same time some say that some actors can profit from climate change. In many cases, the likelihood of dangerous climate change is estimated to be higher after the session. However, more in-depth investigation of these apparent changes in perception is required.

Finally, discussion of artifacts often leads to suggestions for improvements to the game, which leads to some very interesting entry points for further communication. Such proposals typically reflect personal experience or interests of the participants, and would, if implemented, lead to a substantially more complex game. This indicates several effects of the game: (a) Through the game students become familiar enough with the issue to discuss such suggestions, and (b) the game provides a terminology and mental map to communicate complex issues in a simple way, without the need to go deeply into detailed theories, for example, of international relations, economic analyses, or computer models. In subsequent seminar sessions, the common language provided by the game can be used as a reference point for detailed presentations and discussions. This is similar to experiences during the interdisciplinary design phase of the game.

The current experience with using the board game KEEP COOL as a device for teaching and discussing climate change with students suggests the following hypotheses:

Game sessions only facilitate learning if they are carefully debriefed.

Learning effects from KEEP COOL are partially nonconscious and mainly relate to obtaining a holistic picture of otherwise scattered knowledge. A broad spectrum of declarative knowledge is touched on, but not deeply understood after the seminar session.

KEEP COOL provides students with a joint, interdisciplinary language and a common reference for further seminar work.

Already in the debriefing phase, these can be used effectively to discuss complex issues, such as the free-rider problem or interdisciplinarity.

Playing the game repeatedly could contribute to a deeper understanding.

Discussion and Conclusion

A considerable part of the subtleties of climate change lies in the entangled structure of the problem, involving experts from various backgrounds and scientific cultures. It is an open debate whether current forms of science are appropriate for this kind of hybrid problem, or are even at their root (Latour, 1993). This is a challenge for teaching climate change, as mental frames, languages, and communication patterns across different disciplines have to be learned. Providing an integrated overview together with in-depth knowledge is beyond the capacities of a single scientist. At the same time, an integrated perspective is essential to adequately discuss climate change in the public. In this article, I presented a board game, which hopefully contributes to this effort.

KEEP COOL is designed to cover central aspects of the issue, in particular basic climate dynamics, greenhouse gas emissions and impacts, economic mitigation options, adaptation measures, international relations, and climate negotiations. It does so in an abstracted and simplified way without requiring that the players have prior knowledge about climate change. It shows interfaces and interactions between different sectors and communicates climate change in a fun way to enable learning.

In a facilitated seminar setting, the game is introduced, played, and debriefed within 3 to 4 hours by up to 25 students divided into groups. An integral part of the experience is a teamwork phase, in which participants reflect on selected topics, drawing on the experience of the game. The assessment of the game indicates that it can be effectively used in training seminars. The well-known fact that debriefing is essential for experiential learning from a simulation game is confirmed by the experience with KEEP COOL. To make use of the game’s possibilities, it can serve as a starting point for further teaching. As the game successfully provides a broad picture of climate change and touches on basic declarative knowledge, it provides a common experience and terminology that can be made use of by students in later coursework. Already in the debriefing phase, central challenges such as the free-rider problem, power relations, and agenda setting can be more deeply reflected on than before the game. The game could also be used as a wrap-up session at the end of a seminar, but that would miss out on the opportunity for team building and initializing group dynamics from the onset. This effect was observed in groups that played KEEP COOL and has often been reported for other simulation games in teaching environments. Finally, the evaluation of the game shows that the participants learn about the interactions of different scientific disciplines in analyzing climate change. All this indicates that most of the design objectives of the game are attained at least to some degree.

On the other hand, due to the broad coverage of themes in the game, it is still quite complex. Its introduction takes some minutes (in particular for those that are less used to playing board games). It is practically impossible to decode all game elements in a single debriefing session. Getting an understanding of the free-rider problem is impossible without extensive debriefing. Thus, more focused simulation games on climate change might perform better for teaching the specific subject matter they are designed for, while KEEP COOL might be more effective in providing a framework for the exploration of wider climate-change issues that is open to many uses.

The observation that advanced students tend to discuss extensions and modifications after the game demonstrates an interesting interdisciplinary potential for games, which was also confirmed in the development phase where scientists from multiple scientific disciplines were involved. The same is true for game sessions with scientists from different backgrounds and with members of environmental NGOs. By using a board game as common language, knowledge can be integrated and different views can be discussed. It can thus be suggested that games may serve a similar purpose as formal or computer modeling; although models allow for much more complicated representations, games have the advantage that no mathematical training is needed. Through talking about a game, scientists and stakeholders can obtain feedback about their theories without the risk of getting lost in technical matters. Similar observations have been made about other model-related games (e.g., Barreteau, 2003; Reckien & Eisenack, 2010). By playing a game with nonscientific experts, where the game is a medium to communicate a formal model, the teaching situation is shifted toward a dialogue where both sides learn from each other without the need to introduce the model itself in detail.

The other uses of KEEP COOL in the context of raising environmental awareness, public relations, and public understanding of science indicate the potential of games as alternative means to convey complex and policy-relevant knowledge. The entertainment character of a game and its graphical and physical design seem to open up new entry points for communication. This observation is underpinned by the various activities and spin-offs that the game created, and also supported by the fact that a large number of private individuals have shown a strong interest in buying this serious game. It is an open question whether such alternative applications—with games becoming more popular, in particular, in the Internet—will become less fascinating in the future, or gain even more impetus.

The current ready-to-play version has already contributed to teaching and communicating climate change. It provides common ground for interdisciplinary collaboration and for transdisciplinary activities. It conveys an overview and some crucial details of the climate-change issue. The game has initiated productive dialogues with the media, stakeholders, and students and led to further developments as the recent online version. This shows that although climate change is a serious, complex, and broad issue, and although different experts frame it in various ways, innovative instruments can contribute to closing the gap between scientific research, education, and public action.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am deeply indebted to Gerhard Petschel-Held (1964-2005), coauthor of KEEP COOL, and to Anja Wirsing. Without her, the game would not have been such a success. I would also like to thank many former colleagues at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research for their strong support.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Klaus Eisenack is an assistant professor for environment and development economics at Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Germany. He worked at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research from 2001 to 2008. He is interested in institutions to govern long-term sustainability issues. His current research focuses on adaptation to climate change. Since 2008, he is head of the Chameleon research group that investigates adaptation of public and private utilities. In 2006, he received a PhD in mathematics at the Free University Berlin with work on qualitative and nonstandard modeling techniques with applications to natural resource management. Further interests are modeling of policy instruments, game theory, archetypical patterns of social-ecological systems, and games on global change.

Contact: klaus.eisenack@uni-oldenburg.de

References

Barreteau

(2003). The joint use of role-playing games and models regarding negotiation processes: Characterization of associations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(2). Retrieved from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/3.html

BMU [Bundesministerium für Umwelt]. (2004). Klimaschutz als Simulationsspiel [Climate protection as simulation game], German Federal Ministry for the Environment [Brochure]. Retrieved from http://www.bmu.de/publikationen/bildungsservice/bildungsmaterialien/sekundarstufe/lehrer/doc/6799.php

Boehm

(2010). Operation Erde—KEEP COOL. Berlin, Germany: Atze Musikteater. Retrieved from http://www.atzeberlin.de/seiten/dastheater/seiten/dashaus.php

Budde

(2004, December 10). “Keep Cool” Das Spiel zum Klimawandel [the game on climate change] [Radio Broadcast]. Koeln: Deutschlandradio. Retrieved from http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/umwelt/329535/

Clark

R. A.

Gjerde

K. A. P.

Skinner

(2003). The effects of interdisciplinary instruction on simulation performance. Simulation & Gaming, 34, 150-163.

Crookall

(2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 898-920.

Diehl

B. J.

(1991). CRISIS: A process evaluation. Simulation & Gaming, 22, 293-307.

Druckman

(1995). The educational effectiveness of interactive games. In Crookall

Arai

(Eds.), Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures (pp. 178-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

FISH BANKS, LTD. (1989). [Developed by D. Meadows, T. Fiddaman, & D. Shannon (Computer-assisted game).] Durham. University of New Hampshire, Institute for Policy and Social Science Research.

10.

Funtowicz

S. O.

Ravetz

J. R.

(1993). The emergence of post-normal science. In von Schomberg

(Ed.), Science, polities, and morality. Scientific uncertainty and decision making (pp. 85-123). London, England: Kluwer.

11.

Garris

Ahlers

Diskell

J. E.

(2002). Games, motivation and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 441-467.

12.

Gosen

Washbush

(2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation & Gaming, 35, 270-293.

13.

Hirsch-Hadorn

Hoffmann-Riem

Biber-Klemm

Grossenbacher-Mansuy

Joye

Pohl

. . . Zemp

(Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. New York, NY: Springer.

14.

Jones

(2005, October 14). Climate climbs on board [News]. Nature. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051014/full/news051010-17.html. doi:10.1038/news051010-17

15.

Kato

Iida

Sugiura

Arakawa

(2007). A typology of speeches within board game players for analyzing the process of games. In Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) 2007 Conference (pp. 624-628). Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07312.04304.pdf

16.

KEEP COOL—Gambling with the Climate. (2004). [Developed by K. Eisenack & G. Petschel-Held (Board game).] Wiesbaden. Spieltrieb (Pfarrgasse 2, 65321 Niedermeilingen, Germany). Retrieved from www.spiel-keep-cool.de or www.spieltriebgbr.de

17.

KEEP COOL ONLINE. (2009). [Developed by Schulen ans Netz e. V.] Bonn. Schulen and Netz e. V. (Heilsbachstraße 24, 53123 Bonn, Germany). Retrieved from www.keep-cool-online.de

18.

KLIMASCHUTZBASIS NOCOZWO. (2003). [Developed by Niedersächsische Energieagentur.] Hannover (Germany). Niedersächsische Energieagentur (Homann Güner Blum, Hinüberstraße 4 a, 30175 Hannover, Germany). Availablefrom www.nocozwo.de

19.

Latour

(1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Lederman

L. C.

(1992). Debriefing: Towards a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 145-160.

21.

Ludewig

Bednarczyk

Lichtenheldt

(2006). Keep Cool—Spaß am Lernen durch Lernspiele [Keep Cool - Fun with learning through learning with games] (research course report, Prof. Dr. Horstkemper, Department for educational science). Potsdam, Germany: University of Potsdam.

22.

Luttinen

(2010). Keep Cool— Gambling with the Climate (Mat-2.4108 Independent Research Projects in Applied Mathematics). Helsinki, Finland: Aalto University School of Science.

23.

Morimura

Iida

(2010). Teaching English for Japanese undergraduate students while playing an environmental board game in English. Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2010 IEEE International (pp. 183-186). Tokyo, Japan: University of Tokyo. doi:10.1109/IPCC.2010.5529834

24.

Nawrath

Lembcke

Gerstengarbe

F.-W.

(2007). Climate impact research, history, and board games (PIK Environmental Education, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 9, 01943, SRef-ID: 1607-7962/gra/EGU2007-A-01943). Proceedings of the European Geosciences Union, 2007.

25.

Oikos. (2009). Klimasimulationsspiel “KEEP COOL”. Oikos international—Students for sustainable economics and management. Retrieved from http://bayreuth.oikos-international.org/projekte/unsere-alten-projekte/andere-projekte/klimasimulationsspiel-keep-cool.html

26.

Parson

E. A.

(1996). Global climate change policy exercise: Results of a test run (Working Paper WP-96-90). Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

27.

Petranek

(1994). A maturation in experiential learning: Principles of simulation and gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 25, 513-522.

28.

PIK. (2005, August 12). Erfolg für das Brettspiel Keep Cool—Klimaverhandlungen gehen in die zweite Runde [Success for board game Keep Cool - climate negotiations enter second round] [Press release]. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Retrieved from http://www.pik-potsdam.de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/archiv/2005/erfolg-fur-das-brettspiel-keep-cool

29.

RBB. (2004, December 14). Keep Cool [Television broadcast]. Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg: Science Magazine “Einstein.”

30.

Reckien

Eisenack

(2010). Urban sprawl: Using a game to sensitize stakeholders to the interdependencies among actors’ preferences. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 260-277.

31.

Reckien

Eisenack

(2012). Climate change gaming on board and screen reviewed. Simulation & Gaming.

32.

Robert Bosch Stiftung. (2006). NatWorking Project Erdsystemforschung in Berlin und Brandenburg—Ein Netzwerk zwischen Schulen und Forschungsinstituten [NatWorking Project Earth System Science in Berlin and Brandenburg - a Network of Schools and Research Institutes]. Retrieved from http://natworking.bosch-stiftung.de/content/language1/html/index.asp

33.

Robinson

Ausubel

J. H.

(1983). A game framework for scenario generation for the CO2 issue. Simulation & Gaming, 14, 317-344.

34.

Schulze

(2006). Klima-Spiel-Tag—Keep Cool. John-Lennon-Gymnasium Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.dekade.org/datenbank/index.php?d=pdf&;gid=294

35.

Stachowiak

(1973). Allgemeine Modelltheorie [General Model Theory]. Vienna, Austria: Springer.

36.

SURFING GLOBAL CHANGE. (2006). [Developed by G. Ahamer.] Negotiating sustainable solutions. Simulation & Gaming, 37(3), 380-397.

37.

SUSCLIME. (1998). [Developed by B. de Vries.] A simulation/game on population and development in a climate-constrained world. Simulation & Gaming, 29(2), 216-237.

38.

Teichmann

(2010). Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung—Eine empirische Untersuchung des Planspiels KEEP COOL ONLINE in Bezug auf das Trittbrettfahrerproblem [Education for sustainable development - an empirical investigation of the simulation game KEEP COOL ONLINE with special consideration to the free-rider problem] (Unpublished Master Thesis). Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Germany.

39.

Ulrich

(1997). Games/simulations about environmental issues—Existing tools and underlying concepts. In Geurts

Joldersma

Roelofs

(Eds.), Gaming/simulation for policy development and organizational change. (Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Simulation and Gaming Association) (pp. 301-311). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

40.

Wirsing

Eisenack

(2004). Keep Cool. The scientific background of the game. Potsdam, Germany: Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research.