international journal of disaster resilience in the built ... · 12 research, and intervention...

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Hewa Heliyagoda Kankanamge, Ruth Nayomi Elizabeth, Yigitcanlar, Tan,Goonetilleke, Ashantha, & Kamruzzaman, Md(2020)How can gamification be incorporated into disaster emergency planning?A systematic review of the literature.International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 11(4),pp. 481-506.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/199587/

c© 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-08-2019-0054

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Hewa_Heliyagoda_Kankanamge,_Ruth_Nayomi_Elizabeth.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Yigitcanlar,_Tan.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Goonetilleke,_Ashantha.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/199587/

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-08-2019-0054

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment

How can gamification be incorporated into disaster emergency planning? A systematic review of the literature

Journal: International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment

Manuscript ID IJDRBE-08-2019-0054.R3

Manuscript Type: Research Paper

Keywords: gamification, gamified applications, gamified culture, serious games, community engagement, smart disaster emergency planning



1

1 How can gamification be incorporated into disaster emergency planning? A systematic

2 review of the literature

3 Abstract

4 Purpose: The paper aims to investigate the role of gamification as a novel technique in

5 motivating community engagement in disaster-related activities in order to address the

6 question of how gamification can be incorporated into disaster emergency planning.

7 Design/methodology/approach: This study conducts a systematic literature review, and

8 explores available gamified applications for disaster emergency planning and their purpose of

9 use. In total, 51 scholarly articles on the topic, and 35 disaster-related gamified applications

10 are reviewed.

11 Findings: The findings reveal that: (a) Gamified applications (n=35) are used for education,

12 research, and intervention purposes; (b) Gamified applications create new opportunities for

13 community engagement, and raise disaster awareness among the community in virtual

14 environments, and; (c) Gamified applications help shape a new culture—i.e. gamified

15 culture—that supports smart disaster emergency planning practice.

16 Originality/value: During the recent years, utilisation of game elements in non-game

17 contexts—i.e., gamification—has become a popular approach in motivating people in various

18 actions. Increasing research highlighted the benefits of gamification in enhancing community

19 engagement, creating interactive environments, providing better behavioural outcomes, and

20 influencing democratic processes. Despite, some of the applications indicated the potential of

21 gamification in disaster emergency planning, the use of gamification technique in this

22 discipline is an understudied area. This study reveals gamification can be incorporated into

23 disaster emergency planning.

24 Keywords: gamification; gamified applications; gamified culture; serious games; community

25 engagement; smart disaster emergency planning

Page 1 of 46 International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


2

26 1. Introduction

27 Across the world, due to high population growth and unequal infrastructure distribution

28 people tend to locate in disaster prone areas closer to cities (Sotto et al., 2019). Jakarta

29 (Indonesia), Nagoya (Japan), Kolkata (India), Kathmandu (Nepal), Christchurch (New

30 Zealand), and Istanbul (Turkey) are few of the cities that often exposed to disasters

31 (Douglass, 2013). Under these circumstances, effective emergency disaster planning

32 activities are required to make community and authorities highly alert, responsive, adaptive,

33 and as importantly knowledgeable. Thus, scholars, authorities, and emergency planners have

34 been in search for innovative solutions to strengthen community capacities to face upcoming

35 challenges including preparedness for disasters (Lue et al., 2014).

36 Fortunately, at present, there are innovative and technology driven approaches to engage

37 public in disaster emergency planning activities. For instance, people can share their

38 opinions, observations, and requirements through social media platforms. This approach is

39 called as ‘crowdsourcing’, which is referred to the community presence in technology

40 mediated approaches—e.g., social media, mobile applications (Goodchild, 2007; Handmer et

41 al., 2014). Adopting technology mediated approaches is convenient especially in city and

42 neighbourhood levels due to adequate communication infrastructure facilities (Yigitcanlar et

43 al., 2015; Yigitcanlar, 2016; Kankanamge et al., 2019).

44 Despite the proliferation of crowdsourcing tools, not many of them deliver satisfactory

45 results in terms of engaging people (Handmer et al., 2014). A recent study discloses that only

46 10% of the registered participants truly engaged in solving the given tasks in Chinese

47 crowdsourcing platforms. This is due to the absence of sound motivational elements in the

48 crowdsourcing applications (Feng et al., 2018). This means, even with all the available

49 facilities to encourage community engagement, community contributions for emergency

Page 2 of 46International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


3

50 planning still lags behind. This has led to the creation of a new research frontier, so-called

51 ‘gamification’, to encourage community awareness and engagement on various issues—also

52 including disaster emergency planning activities. Nevertheless, the review acknowledges all

53 of the prevailing disaster emergency planning services, such as using emergency contact

54 numbers and stakeholder meetings. Further, some countries and cities, such as Tokyo,

55 Vanuatu, and Cook Islands, have several historical precedents to plan disaster emergency

56 activities. These activities include constructing houses from bamboo, which stand up to

57 earthquakes, and using traditional leadership networks of villages to raise disaster awareness

58 to fight with both natural and human-made disasters (Fletcher et al., 2013).

59 The term ‘gamification’ was first started to gain recognition in 2011, as a promising

60 method to motivate community engagement in various actions. Simply, gamification is about

61 the use of game design elements in non-game or the real-world serious contexts (Deterding et

62 al., 2011). According to Rasmusen (1994) there are four game design elements: (a) Players of

63 the game; (b) Information; (c) Actions available to the players at each decision point, and; (d)

64 Payoffs for each outcome. Scholars used interchangeable terms such as ‘gamification’,

65 ‘serious games’, ‘pervasive/persuasive games’, and ‘games with a purpose’ (GWAP) to

66 motivate community awareness and engagement in real-world serious contexts (Abt, 1987;

67 Mendler de Suarez et al., 2012; Werbach, 2014; Castellanos, 2016; Aubert et al., 2018).

68 Gamification is not an exclusive property of a specific discipline (Seaborn & Fels, 2015).

69 It has drawn attention to foster community awareness and engagement in numerous

70 disciplines as diverse as urban planning (Devisch et al., 2016; Ampatzidou et al., 2018),

71 health (Bul et al., 2015; Chou et al., 2017; Liteplo et al., 2018; Wazny, 2018), commerce and

72 marketing (Ramadan, 2018), education (Mallon, 2013), energy (Gheorghe & Vamanu, 2013;

73 Magaña & Muñoz-Organero, 2015). Nonetheless, there has only been limited gamified


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


4

74 applications developed and used in disaster emergency planning practices (Breuer et al.,

75 2017).

76 Against this backdrop, the paper investigates the literature of gamification as a novel

77 technique in motivating community engagement in disaster emergency planning activities.

78 Further, this paper attempts to disclose key knowledge gaps exist in using gamified

79 applications in disaster emergency planning. For instance, there are studies—e.g., Solinska-

80 Nowak et al., 2018—that analysed disaster-related gamified applications in terms of their

81 aims, target audiences, and hazards addressed; however, they neglected motivational

82 elements, which are critical to encourage people using these applications. Accordingly, this

83 literature review acts as a presentation of the key references to identify current gaps in

84 presented research within the literature. In order to do so, the paper concentrates on

85 addressing the following two research questions: (a) How can gamification motivate

86 community engagement in disaster emergency planning activities? (b) How can gamification

87 be incorporated into disaster awareness campaigns? To address these research questions, the

88 paper conducts a systematic literature review, and explores available gamified applications

89 for disaster emergency planning and their purpose of use.

90 2. Background

91 2.1. Pure games and gamification

92 Pure games are participatory tools, defined by rules that provides uncertain outcomes with

93 the sense of joy, leisure, and freedom—i.e., Candy crush, Hitman. Pure games could either

94 have ludas (gamefulness), where the player has to follow a set of rules to achieve the

95 objective, or paidia (playfulness), where the player has enough freedom to enjoy tasks

96 (McGonigal, 2011). Inspired by pure games, gamification is increasingly explored as a

97 method to use game design elements in non-game, real-life environments. It makes people


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


5

98 engagement in real-life serious activities more enjoyable than they would otherwise be

99 (Deterding et al., 2011; Prestopnik et al., 2017).

100 The prime intention of gamification is to motivate community participation in real-life

101 situations (Morschheuser et al., 2017). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are the key

102 motivational drivers to pay off the outcomes of the gamified applications (Seaborn & Fels,

103 2015). Extrinsic motivation refers to the behaviours that is influenced by external incentives.

104 Intrinsic motivation refers to the behaviours that is influenced by internal emotions (Ryan &

105 Deci, 2000). These two motivational types drive all pure games and gamified applications to

106 receive a considerable player participation (Tinati et al., 2017).

107 Nevertheless, different scholars define gamification in different ways. Table 1 lists a

108 number of common themes run across the different definitions provided by scholars.

109 Accordingly, game-like elements, game-thinking, and problem solving were the mainly

110 emphasised themes of the definitions analysed below.

111 [INSERT TABLE 1]

112 2.2. Traditional and contemporary emergency disaster planning practices

113 Disasters are destructive events that threaten the wellbeing of individuals (Gardoni &

114 Murphy, 2010). There are numerous practices adopted by emergency planners at each phase

115 of the disaster management cycle—i.e., preparedness, mitigation, response, recovery, to keep

116 people safe and responsive. Irrespective to these phases, this literature review categorises the

117 existing emergency planning practices into two broad categories—i.e., traditional, and

118 contemporary (Kankanamge et al., 2020). All practices that are manually driven and have

119 been practiced for centuries were categorised as traditional emergency planning practices.

120 Other practices, which are inspired by new technologies were categorised as contemporary


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


6

121 emergency planning practices. As a technology driven approach this review considered

122 gamified applications as a contemporary tool that could be used for emergency planning.

123 Manually driven damage assessments, valuation techniques, (Liu, 2014; Mechler, 2016)

124 contingency funding and insurance, (Harrison & Johnson, 2016), and direct observations

125 (Yuan & Liu, 2018) are among the traditional disaster rehabilitation practices. Involving

126 community in decision-making could be a costly and time-consuming practice with

127 traditional face-to-face participatory tools of emergency planning—e.g., focus group

128 meetings, policy fora, decision pathway surveys, model development (Pitot et al., 2006;

129 Aubert & Lienert, 2019). Nonetheless, these practices seem inadequate in the case of a large-

130 scale emergency situation as they lack active community engagement (Gardoni & Murphy,

131 2010, Baytiyeh, 2017). Henceforth, extant researches attempt to disclose innovative ways to

132 encourage community engagement in disaster emergency planning activities.

133 Combined with technology, contemporary emergency planning practices have increased

134 their capacities to overcome drawbacks of the traditional ones. According to Henkey (2017),

135 there will not be a single factor greater than technology in creating a positive impact for

136 emergency planning. In recent years, advanced technologies were interlinked with people

137 centric social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. They also become more

138 people centric and useful for disaster emergency planning (Kankanamge et al., 2020).

139 Enhancement of victim-responder communication through cellular location finding

140 technologies, sending messages with location information through Facebook, Twitter,

141 Instagram (Feng & Sester, 2018; Wang et al., 2018), and usage of unmanned vehicles—e.g.,

142 aerial drones—for emergency investigations are some of the technologies used for emergency

143 planning activities. Such georeferenced technologies help emergency planners to launch

144 disaster rescue campaigns to find lost people with less effort. This might eventually lead to a

145 smart emergency planning systems (Metaxiotis et al., 2010). Albeit, technology driven


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


7

146 approaches, as emphasised by this review study, is an understudied area of research. Further,

147 there is a possibility of infrastructure failure during disasters that might interrupt the entire

148 digital response mechanism (Rottz et al., 2019), which the future researches should

149 investigate new solutions for.

150 3. Methodology

151 This study adopted a systematic literature review technique as depicted in Figure 1. The

152 research followed the review procedure outlined by Yigitcanlar et al. (2019). The objective of

153 adopting a systematic review is to identify relevant studies, appraise their contents, identify

154 common themes, and critically summarise their findings.

155 [INSERT FIGURE 1]

156 Firstly, a research plan connecting the research aim, keywords, and a set of inclusion and

157 exclusion criteria was developed in par with the research objectives. The research objectives

158 were to review gamification related literature to improve efficiency of emergency planning

159 practices through community participation. This was to evaluate the applicability and impacts

160 of gamified elements on stimulating community engagement in emergency planning

161 activities. Based on the abovementioned objectives, it was decided to select ‘gamification’,

162 ‘serious games’, ‘emergency’, ‘crisis’, ‘disasters’, and ‘‘planning’ as the main keywords.

163 Peer-reviewed research articles in English language were considered as the inclusion

164 criteria. The review conducted using an academic search engine that connects databases,

165 including Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library, Directory of Open

166 Access Journals. Research excluded edited or authored books, conference proceedings,

167 journal editorials, articles in languages other than English, grey literature such as government

168 or industry reports, and non-academic research. This is to confine the review into academic

169 publications. As given in Figure 1, the search included only peer-reviewed and full-text


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


8

170 journal articles available online. Secondly, the search was conducted in July 2019 for journal

171 articles published between January 2008 and July 2019. As the concept of gamification, in its

172 contemporary sense, was coined in 2008, the start data of the research was determined as

173 2008. The resultant search items were initially checked by reading the abstracts and then by

174 reading the full-text.

175 Thirdly, the initial thematic search was conducted through the Boolean search line of

176 ((Title/Abstract contains the term/s “gamif*” OR “serious game”) AND (Title/Abstract

177 contains the term/s “disaster” OR “crisis” OR “emergency” OR “planning”)) to identify

178 researches that focus on gamified applications for disaster emergency planning (Figure 1).

179 Truncation was used in the term gamif* to broaden the search to synonyms such as,

180 ‘gamification’ and ‘gamified’ accordingly. The search resulted in 74 papers. They were

181 screened by reading the abstracts (in total 60 articles). After reading the full-texts to ensure

182 that they fit into the research scope, the articles were limited to 51. This literature review used

183 the theme identification process introduced by Yigitcanlar et al. (2019)—that did not have

184 gamification focus—, to identify the common themes/categories of the reviewed papers

185 (Table 2).


187 The final stage of the process was to critically evaluate and document the findings in the

188 form of a literature review paper. In this process, additional articles, which did not meet the

189 aforementioned selection criteria were also included to better appreciate the research

190 background and the findings—e.g., books, book chapters, online reports, organisation reports,

191 statistical reports, government policies. While evaluating selected 51 articles, all disaster-

192 related gamified applications mentioned in these studies were captured. Gamified

193 applications were verified against the following criteria, they: (a) Need to comply with the


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


9

194 definition of gamification—i.e., played in a serious context; (b) Focus on a disaster-related

195 area, and; (c) Should not be a commercial product—i.e., freely available to wider population.

196 4. Results

197 4.1. General observations

198 Of the 51 selected papers, none of them tried to draw a direct link among gamification,

199 community awareness or engagement, and emergency planning. Nonetheless, Bayas et al.

200 (2016), Albertarelli et al. (2018), Wazny (2018) discussed about the potentials of using

201 gamified applications for emergency planning to a certain extent. Still, they need more

202 empirical and conceptual understandings to justify and establish the idea. Thereby, a

203 literature review is a key element in identifying the landscape for future research in

204 introducing gamification to better plan the disaster emergency activities. Considering the

205 reviewed articles and the links given in the articles, the literature review identified 35

206 gamified applications. As given in Tables 3-5, these applications were further classified based

207 on their key objectives/purposes.

208 4.2. Objectives of gamified applications

209 This section collates and synthesises the objectives reported in the reviewed literature.

210 Although gamification looks intuitively appealing, a coherent understanding is essential to

211 analyse it further. As presented in Tables 3-5, all of the reviewed articles were classified by

212 their objectives—gamified applications that collect data for research; gamified applications

213 that aim to increase disaster education among people, and gamified applications that try to

214 intervene exiting practices. The process given in Table 2 was adopted to conduct this

215 classification. Although the reviewed articles were classified by their objectives, this

216 literature review emphasised the interdependent nature of all three objectives. This will


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


10

217 ultimately create a new platform for people to participate in scientific decision-making—so-

218 called citizen science.

219 4.2.1. Gamified applications for research

220 Gamified applications developed to collect data and information for research activities

221 were categorised as gamified applications for research purposes. From the reviewed 51

222 articles 15 discussed about the use of gamified applications for research purposes. Research

223 organisations, councils, and government departments create gamified applications either to

224 assess community knowledge about the existing disaster-related government policies

225 (outward)—social simulations—or to make community to create disaster-related information

226 for state governments (inward), i.e., FloodSim (UK).


228 From the identified 35 gamified applications derived through the reviewed articles and

229 provided links, 14 of them aimed at participating people for different research purposes. The

230 data collected through such applications are used to plan disaster emergency activities by

231 policymakers (Suarez, 2015). ‘Millbrook Council Serious Game’, ‘Ayiti: The Cost of Life’,

232 ‘SchaVis’, ‘SimFlood’, ‘Digital UpRiver’ (Suarez, 2015), and ‘FloodSim’ (Rebolledo-

233 Mendez et al., 2009) can be identified as gamified applications created to collect data from

234 participants for research purposes.

235 ‘FloodSim’ players decide where to set up disaster management measures and how much

236 to invest on flood defences adhering to the UK flood policies (Breuer et al., 2017). By

237 playing the game, players indirectly evaluate the existing flood policies of UK. Its outcomes

238 (decisions taken by the players) are circulated with policymakers and insurers. However, such

239 games do not provide an option to collect demographic information of the participants, which

240 might be a useful fact for researches.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


11

241 ‘Millbrook Council Serious Game’ makes people to create data related to the flood

242 mitigation (Khoury et al., 2018) for the local council to make disaster-related decisions.

243 ‘SerGIS’ is also another gamified application that generate spatial data for disaster situation

244 trainings. This has been used to manage floods in Malmo, Sweden (Tomaszewski &

245 Schwartz, 2017).

246 Gamified applications, designed for research purposes, help community to share their

247 knowledge as an input for policymakers to make people-centric decisions. In a way,

248 collecting data from the crowd even for research purposes can be identified as a

249 crowdsourcing exercise. Nevertheless, in the case applications use game design elements in

250 real-world contexts, they are identified as gamified applications (Deterding et al., 2011).

251 Nonetheless, most of the reviewed literature on gamified applications for research

252 purposes, have discussed about the technological significance of the application design. They

253 have not tested the applicability of gamified applications to plan disaster emergency activities

254 except for ‘FloodSim’ and ‘Millbrook Serious Game’. While appreciating the significance of

255 exposing the technical aspect of the gamified applications, this literature review equally

256 emphasised the significance of evaluating the usability of them.

257 Gamified applications engage in collecting different types of data and information for

258 disaster-focused research purposes. For instance, ‘Geochat’, ‘HealthMap’ and

259 ‘OutbreaksNearMe’ gamified applications led participants to create geolocated disease

260 information after a disaster (Wazny, 2018). Irrespective to one specific location anyone can

261 used such applications across the world to share spatial data related to a disease outbreak. In

262 order to use such applications, people need to share their location information along with the

263 information they plan to circulate. By using them people tend to report areas with high

264 disease vulnerabilities (Olszewski et al., 2018; Prandi et al., 2019). Although such gamified

265 applications do not solely focus disaster situations, they could be used to detect post-disaster


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


12

266 disease dispersions. It will help authorities to provide health assistances accordingly (Wazny,

267 2018).

268 Aubert & Lienert (2019) identified gamified applications as a potential approach to make

269 more reliable decisions, since it facilitates people to contribute in emergency planning by

270 providing data and information. Supportively, Kolar & Cater (2018) argued that inclusion of

271 ordinary citizens in scientific decision-making—citizen science. Although Tomaszewski &

272 Schwartz (2017) and Khoury et al. (2018) tried to analyse the significance of gamified

273 applications as an information harvesting research tool in disasters, more research is

274 demanded to establish the idea.

275 4.2.2. Gamified applications for education

276 The reviewed articles, which discussed about the gamified applications to educate and

277 train the community, are categorised as gamified applications for education. From the

278 reviewed 51 articles 25 of them focused on using gamified applications for education. They

279 are often used as a marketing strategy to attract people to educate about disasters (Pacauskas

280 et al., 2018).


282 From the 35 gamified applications identified, through the reviewed articles and provided

283 links, 18 of them were used for education and training purposes (Table 4). ‘Playing for

284 Predictions’, ‘Stop Disasters!’, ‘WeShareIt’ (developed for to be mainly used in Kenya),

285 ‘Levee Patroller’ (developed for Netherlands) (Onencan et al., 2016a), ‘Dissolving Disasters’

286 (developed for Madagascar), ‘Sai Fah: The Flood Fighter’ (developed for Thailand) (Mani et

287 al., 2016), and ‘Disaster Detector’ (developed for the US) (SSEC, 2019) were some of the

288 popular gamified applications focused on educating the participants about disasters. Although

289 such applications were played and tested in few countries, they are freely available online to


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


13

290 anyone (from anywhere in the world) with an interest to increase their disaster-related

291 education.

292 The education and training given through such gamified applications were three-fold.

293 Firstly, they provide education about the ways of reading scientific instruments such as

294 anemometer, thermometer, and seismometers and finally to detect disasters—i.e., ‘Disaster

295 Detector’. Secondly, such applications create virtual disaster environments and let the player

296 to face the disaster and survive in the virtual environment—role playing—i.e., ‘InaSAFE’

297 (Suarez, 2015), ‘Dread-Ed’ (Wahyudin et al., 2017).

298 Thirdly, gamified applications let the player to engage in disaster planning exercise at a

299 city level or in a neighbourhood level—i.e., ‘Stop Disasters!’ (UNISDR, 2018). They are

300 universal games, which are supposed to be played by anyone with an interest. Unlike to the

301 gamified applications for research, most of the gamified applications for education are in

302 hypothetically created virtual environments/settlements, which do not refer to any real-world

303 geolocation. For instance, Stop Disasters! gamified application provides cartooned townships

304 to play the games.

305 Awareness raising is the main target of educating community through gamified

306 applications (Alessi et al., 2015). Most of them let the participants to live, think, and play in a

307 virtual disaster environment (Greenhill et al., 2016; Prandi et al., 2017). It acts as a learning

308 tool to alter human behaviours by providing disaster awareness in virtual environments

309 (Prestopnik & Tang, 2015; Liteplo et al., 2018). However, there are different gamified

310 disaster awareness tools that conduct in class rooms such as ‘Decisions for the Decade’

311 (RCCC, 2019a), ‘Paying for Predictions’ (RCCC, 2019b). Future researches, which aim to

312 trap local knowledge to plan disaster emergency activities through gamified applications,

313 could develop new gamified applications using virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality

314 (AR) technologies similar to ‘Pokémon GO’ AR game. ‘Virtual reality (VR) for climate


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


14

315 change’, ‘Disaster in my backyard’ are such applications that have already used these

316 technologies (Meesters et al., 2014).

317 In the most recent game development practices, artificial intelligence (AI) is also started to

318 be used to generate responsive, adaptive or intelligent behaviours primarily in non-player

319 characters (NPCs) similar to human-like intelligence. This development is expected to

320 revolutionise the capabilities of serious games—including the ones used for educational

321 purposes for disaster emergency planning (Buche & Franklin, 2018).

322 4.2.3. Gamified applications for intervention

323 Gamified applications that create an influence to change the existing practices by sharing

324 the community experiences, reflections, criticisms as a form of feedback were categorised as

325 gamified applications for intervention. From the 51 articles reviewed, only seven had a focus

326 of specific interventions to policymaking through real-world disaster experiences (Wells et

327 al., 2014; Aubert & Lienert, 2019; Rodela et al., 2019).


329 From the identified 35 gamified applications, only three have attempted to make an

330 influence through real-world disasters. They are, ‘Flood-Wise’, ‘Forest@Risk’, and ‘I See

331 Change’ (EU, 2012; CSS, 2019; ISC, 2019). These gamified applications try to make an

332 intervention to the disaster-related issues by considering specific case studies/incidences,

333 which might adverse the disaster impacts. Thus, this category of gamified applications could

334 be considered as an emerging area of research.

335 ‘I See Change’ gamified application functions similar to Facebook, where people can

336 share any noticeable environment change from any place across the world (ISC, 2019). Then

337 the network start discussing, sharing, and commenting on it. However, ‘I See Change’ mobile

338 application is popular in the US. ‘Flood-Wise’ discusses about the transboundary flood risk


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


15

339 of two territories, i.e., Poland and Ukraine. This use near-real disaster situations to motivate

340 participants to face upcoming disasters in an effective way (Ramadan, 2018; Solinska-Nowak

341 et al., 2018). Both, ‘Forest@Risk’ and ‘Flood-wise’ recreate a near-real disaster experience to

342 keep people motivated and prepared (Cowley & Bateman, 2017). These games can be played

343 by anyone with an interest from anywhere in the world.

344 Nonetheless, the three categorisations presented in this literature review are not rigid or

345 mutually exclusive. There could be mutual interdependencies and overlaps. The suggested

346 categories and corresponding descriptions were exposed as a support to those needing to plan

347 and deliver gamified applications for emergency planning. Furthermore, these categories

348 themselves will not deliver an effective gamified application for emergency planning as all of

349 them are backed by different intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The main objective of

350 including motivational elements to gamified applications is to encourage community

351 participation.

352 4.3. Motivations of gamified applications

353 Most of the reviewed literature considered two types of motivations related to gamified

354 applications—i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. They were backed by strong

355 motivational theories such as the ‘self-determination theory’ (Seaborn & Fels, 2015),

356 ‘intrinsic and extrinsic motivation theory’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Seaborn & Fels, 2015),

357 ‘behaviour change theory’ (Abraham & Michie, 2008), ‘social practice theory’ (Wemyss,

358 2019), ‘self-directed learning theory’ (Garrison, 1997), and ‘theory of civic learning’

359 (Devisch et al., 2016). All the reviewed articles have discussed at least one of the aforesaid

360 motivation types. Motivational elements presented below explain how gaming elements

361 would trigger community engagement.

362 4.3.1. Intrinsic motivation


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


16

363 Intrinsic motivation refers to a perception of an activity that delivers the sense of

364 satisfaction or entertainment (Tinati et al., 2017). User satisfaction level is determined by the

365 assignment type and the personal interests of the players (Albertarelli et al., 2018). After

366 analysing the reviewed literature, the paper derived 10 distinct intrinsic motivations used in

367 emergency planning as presented in Table 5.


369 The emergency planning literature emphasised the need of more motivational factors to

370 bridge the gap between community engagement and emergency planning (Shi et al., 2018).

371 For instance, all the three types of gamified applications discussed above—gamified

372 applications for research, education and intervention—require more community

373 participations to collect data, to raise awareness, and to share critical reflections. Community

374 always exist either at the end or at the very beginning of the disaster emergency planning

375 process. If, community could provide reflections and information about their experiences at

376 the beginning of the emergency planning process, it will lead to shape the entire disaster

377 planning processes more people centric.

378 From the identified intrinsic motivations, the mostly cited intrinsic motivations were

379 learning/gain awareness, participation/contribution, and leisure/fun. They are much useful to

380 be considered for future researches in designing gamified applications for disasters situations.

381 Generally, intrinsic motivations—i.e., leisure/fun or enjoyment—are often in pure games.

382 Although the applications intended to be focused on serious contexts, this literature review

383 reflects the significance of delivering leisurely feeling to the players.

384 4.3.2. Extrinsic motivation

385 From the reviewed literature, 14 types of extrinsic motivations as listed in Table 6 were

386 identified. Contrary to intrinsic motivations, extrinsic motivations encourage community


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


17

387 engagement by granting rewards and points. Such rewards deliver participants a recognition

388 or a sense of victory, rather reinforcing participation through emotional preferences (Harris,

389 2018). Among the identified extrinsic motivations, rewards/tokens (i.e., ‘Stop Disasters!’),

390 reputation and resilience score (i.e., ‘SerGIS’), ranking, rating and feedbacks (i.e.,

391 ‘ISeeChange’), and goal setting (i.e., ‘WeShareIt’) are the mostly cited extrinsic motivations

392 to leverage participation.


394 In terms of planning disaster emergency activities, ‘role-playing’ as a gamified element

395 has gained an increasing attention (Aubert et al., 2018). Role-playing is a game element,

396 which enables a player to play a particular role in a given serious environment, rather playing

397 a game for fun. Role of a stakeholder (Ampatzidou et al., 2018), role of an adventure, live-

398 action role playing (Kolar & Cater, 2018), and real-time strategy nominating games

399 (Prestopnik & Tang, 2015) are some of the popular role-playing game types referred in the

400 reviewed literature.

401 4.4. Outcomes of gamified applications

402 Spectrum of expected outcomes of gamified applications take two distinct perspectives:

403 (a) Continuous outputs and behavioural change, and; (b) Win or lose.

404 4.4.1. Continuous outputs and behavioural change

405 From the reviewed 51 literature pieces, 40 had a focus of changing the behaviour of the

406 participants as a direct consequence of gamified applications—i.e., gamified applications for

407 education. Basically, actions that drive people to change the behaviour do not happen in a

408 vacuum. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational elements in the gamified applications are the key

409 determinants of motivating people to engage, learn, and contribute to plan disaster emergency

410 activities. This literature review derived 35 gamified applications (Tables 3-5). Among them,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


18

411 gamified applications for education such as ‘Playing for Predictions’ and ‘Stop Disasters’

412 dominantly focus on altering the community skills on investing disaster risk reduction

413 measurements, identifying disaster prone areas and reading the scientific instruments—i.e.,

414 ‘Disaster Detector’.

415 These applications consist intrinsic and extrinsic motivational elements such as points and

416 ranks. This is to attract more community engagement to increase community awareness,

417 collect more data through research oriented gamified applications, and make interventions to

418 the society, which are the main objective of these games.

419 Tanes & Cho (2013) conducted a user experience survey to statistically prove how “Beat

420 the Quake” gamified application changed the playing community behaviour positively in

421 preparing themselves for upcoming disasters. Besides, Meesters & Walle (2014), Mani et al.

422 (2016), and Radianti et al. (2017) revealed the effectiveness of using gamified applications in

423 motivating players to gain disaster awareness by conducting user experience surveys before

424 and after playing the applications. Findings of these studies disclosed that the more people

425 play these games, the more they get motivated. Although, there are limited empirical studies

426 conducted to understand the levels of motivation in gamified applications, they showed the

427 significance of these applications in converting ‘general knowledge’ into ‘actionable

428 knowledge’ (Brunet et al., 2018).

429 4.4.2. Win or lose

430 From the reviewed literature pieces, 17 of them discussed the gamified applications that

431 are developed on the competitive game elements. Such applications with high degree of

432 competition motivate players to play the game than getting knowledge. Specially gamified

433 applications for research create competitive environments to harvest data for the governments

434 or for public authorities through the players. Nevertheless, this method of engaging people


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


19

435 and data gathering also raised some privacy, security and ethical concerns (Prestopnik &

436 Tang, 2015).

437 In these studies, participants attended to a game for the sake of entertainment or to collect

438 rewards and points. For instance, games—e.g., ‘HINT!’, ‘AXmap’ (Prandi et al., 2015), ‘Old

439 Weather’ (Prestopnik & Tang, 2015)—focus on collecting georeferenced points and entering

440 historic weather records in logbooks to digital forms. Attending to such tasks might not lead

441 to change the playing community behaviour significantly, but will benefit the community

442 indirectly when decision-makers, planners, and/or scholars analyse the data created by the

443 players (Prestopnik & Tang, 2015). In such games, with or without the knowledge of their

444 contributions to a real-world context, players will play the game for victory. Still, such

445 gamified applications should clearly inform the players beforehand that authorities are going

446 to use the player generated data for research purposes.

447 5. Discussion and Conclusion

448 5.1. How can gamification motivate citizen engagement in disaster emergency planning?

449 Disaster prevention is a worthwhile, but yet an elusive goal (Henkey, 2017). Hence,

450 bearing and sharing responsibilities collectively to plan disaster emergency activities have

451 become a central topic of scholarly debates. Traditional community engagement tools—e.g.,

452 stakeholder meetings, interviews, speed dialling—play a limited role in accelerating

453 community engagement in disaster emergency planning activities. Therefore, finding new

454 ways to motivate community engagement to plan disaster emergency activities has become a

455 priority to increase the effectiveness, efficiency and smartness of the disaster emergency

456 planning activities. Particularly in the age of advance digital technologies, increasing the

457 smartness of cities and communities with the help of technology is a popular topic

458 (Yigitcanlar et al., 2018; Yigitcanlar & Kamruzzaman, 2019). This literature review


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


20

459 discovered two ways of incorporating gamified applications for community engagement in

460 disaster emergency planning: (a) Through extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, and; (b)

461 Motivating community engagement to plan disaster emergency activities under three different

462 objectives—gamified applications for research, education, and intervention.

463 Using extrinsic and intrinsic motivations in gamified applications is a popular way of

464 promoting gamified applications to motivate community engagement. In the age of rising

465 community centric technologies, gamified applications tend to act more psychological than

466 technical (Matallaoui et al. 2017). Community engagement is also a psychological fact (Feng

467 et al., 2018).. For instance, when an emergency strikes, community driven intrinsic

468 motivations (e.g., altruism, exploration, curiosity, social recognition, belongingness) appear

469 to help each other, without considering extrinsic motivation of collecting incentives.

470 Especially, in the post-disaster recovery, community have adequate time to contribute to

471 plan disaster emergency activities by providing data demanded for emergency planning—

472 gamified applications for research i.e., ‘HealthMap’, ‘Geochat’. For instance, Lue et al.

473 (2014) conducted disaster damage assessments in Dallas Fort-Worth with spatial video

474 technology. Participants driven by intrinsic motivations enjoyed and completed time-

475 consuming damage assessment tasks in shorter time frames. This accelerated the disaster

476 recovery activities after the 2000 Dallas Fort-Worth Tornado.

477 Motivating community engagement by establishing collaborative environments reduce the

478 information and knowledge gaps between authorities and citizens (Goodchild & Glennon,

479 2010; McCormick, 2016). Generally, community in safe zones are mostly viewing an

480 emergency in far, rather involving to reduce disaster risks (Shi et al., 2018). Increasingly,

481 such behaviours are isolating since contemporary technologies have spurred the growth of

482 virtually volunteering communities.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


21

483 With the existing bureaucratic legislation and administration procedures community

484 cannot meet the decision-makers to convey their experience and lessons learnt (Handmer et

485 al., 2014). In against, in an environment where community can convey their experiences and

486 lessons learnt through a gamified application will make disaster emergency planning more

487 flexible and inclusive, and thus smarter. Such collaborative environments further reduce the

488 information flow barriers in public administration processes (Gudes et al., 2010) in the

489 emergency planning practice. The UK is a contemporary example, which enjoy the benefits

490 of gamified applications in disaster emergency planning—i.e., ‘FloodSim’, ‘Millbrook

491 Council Serious Game’ (Rebolledo-Mendez et al., 2009). These two games are designed for

492 UK as they consider UK flood policies and the geography for the games. Still, anyone can

493 play these games from anywhere in the world and the model adopted for these games can be

494 used to design gamified applications for other countries as well.

495 5.2. How can gamification be incorporated into disaster awareness campaigns?

496 The literature review suggests that the gamification techniques are increasingly explored

497 as awareness raising mechanisms. Increasing the emergency planning awareness in virtual

498 environments was the mostly considered way of incorporating gamified technologies for

499 emergency planning awareness campaigns—i.e., ‘Levee Patroller’, ‘WeShareIt’,

500 ‘Magnitude’. For instance, almost all the gamified applications discussed in this literature

501 review for education have received more than 80% rank from the players for the effective

502 influences received from gamified applications for awareness raising (Mani et al., 2016;

503 Onencan et al., 2016a; Wahyudin et al., 2017; Chou et al., 2018).

504 Gamified applications motivate community engagement through intrinsic—i.e.,

505 willingness to participate, curiosity—and extrinsic—i.e., badges, ranks, rewards, motivational

506 elements. These motivational elements could be common to both traditional awareness


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


22

507 raising methods and gamified applications. However, as given in Figure 2, the deliverables of

508 the two methods are drastically different. Especially with the proliferation of hand-held

509 smartphone technologies, AR and VR technologies, awareness raising through gamified

510 applications will become more flexible and user-friendly (Meesters et al., 2014; Yoon & Jin,

511 2016).

512 [INSERT FIGURE 2]

513 Currently, many countries including the US, Canada, and Indonesia use crowdsourcing for

514 awareness raising (Harrison & Johnson, 2016; Yuan & Liu, 2018). In such circumstances,

515 this research emphasises the need of overlying gamification technologies with crowdsourcing

516 to enhance virtual disaster awareness raising campaigns—i.e., gamified crowdsourcing

517 (Tinati et al., 2017; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Ampatzidou et al., 2018). The literature review

518 suggests to use gamification as a prospective tool to bridge the gap in between community

519 engagement and emergency planning through gamified crowdsourcing to make the planning

520 practice smarter.

521 While considering the promises of gamified applications for disaster awareness raising, the

522 issue of ‘digital divide’ also needs to be considered. Digital divide is about the unequal access

523 to information technology—e.g., internet, smart phones. Meaning that those do not have

524 access to technology is left out from the opportunities that gamified applications offer

525 (Yigitcanlar, 2006, 2009; Kankanamge et al., 2020). Especially, until recently digital

526 infrastructure such as internet, smart phones and gaming devices were not widely available in

527 most of the disaster vulnerable countries—such as Pakistan, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.

528 Albeit, now around 31% of people from East Asia, 19% from North Africa, and 17% from

529 Central Asia have internet access in their homes (Kumar et al., 2019). Moreover, the

530 increasing popularity of internet and smart phones has already helped developing countries to


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


23

531 use bigdata for disaster emergency planning—i.e., Twitter tracking and analysis system

532 (TWRsms) of Padang Indonesia (Yuan & Liu, 2018), Ushahidi-India, and Mission 4636 of

533 Haiti (Liu, 2014). With the increasing coverage and availability of internet and smart phones,

534 introducing gamified applications for disaster awareness can also bring benefits to the

535 disadvantaged communities of developing countries (Baytiyeh, 2017)—although some

536 government subsidies might also be needed. However, lack of digital dexterity is still evident

537 among developing countries, which demands for more capacity building programs and

538 subsidies. Furthermore, studies are needed to find novel ways to engage elderly

539 populations—that might not have the willingness to learn and use the technology—with

540 gamified applications—while also continuing traditional methods of engagement.

541 5.3. Is the raise of the gamified culture in the horizon?

542 Gamification is rather a young discipline. It has emerged from an intersecting landscape of

543 numerous elements that have grown together and inspired by each other’s commonalities.

544 The reviewed literature interchangeably and repetitively emphasised the presence of five

545 common elements—i.e., people (citizens), play (motivation), participate (engagement),

546 technology (tool), serious context (e.g., disaster)—that will eventually form a ‘gamified

547 culture’ in disaster emergency planning. In a way, the gamified culture proposed in this

548 literature review, creates a novel working definition for gamified applications within the

549 context of disaster emergency planning.

550 The emphasised gamified culture with five elements reflects the need of moving beyond

551 monopolistic and technocratic interfaces to interactive, interdepended environments. This is

552 to best harvest the shared and collective capabilities of people. Aforesaid five elements

553 challenge Deterding et al.’s (2011) gamification definition as they tried to keep playfulness or

554 playful elements away from gamification.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


24

555 Introducing gamified culture to emergency planning has inspired a shift from

556 contemporary emergency planning environments to an integrated digital emergency planning

557 environment, which will benefit both humans and wildlife—i.e., 2020 Australian Bushfires.

558 The literature review at hand revealed the idea of identifying gamification as a data collection

559 method (gamified applications for research), education and training method (gamified

560 application for education), and a method of intervention (gamified application for

561 intervention). Application of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational elements in a gamified

562 culture to motivate community looks quiet promising in emergency planning. Nevertheless,

563 potentials of gamification theory and practice have not been adequately investigated and this

564 poses a clear knowledge gap. More case-based and empirical investigations are required to

565 explore the potentials of gamification—along with critical and theoretical reviews and

566 arguments.

567 Further, this review identified three main drawbacks of the existing gamified applications.

568 Firstly, not collecting demographic information of the players in detail (e.g.,

569 age/gender/education level) can make it hard to define who the exact players engaged in

570 gamified applications are. This might be an issue especially when using data for research

571 purposes. Not considering disable communities, i.e., visual impairments, in designing

572 gamified applications is the second drawback. Nonetheless, exposing gamified applications

573 for a wide arena of communities will help to evaluate different cultures of players. Thirdly,

574 most of such applications are based on the European context, which future researches should

575 focus on expanding these technologies to the disaster-prone Asian countries as well.

576 5.4. Limitations and future research directions

577 The literature review conducted in this paper has the following limitations: (a)

578 Conference proceedings, book chapters, and white papers were excluded, which may have

579 reduced the research knowledge base reviewed; (b) Selected search keywords could have


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


25

580 omitted some relevant articles; (c) Authors’ unconscious bias could have an influence on the

581 findings; (d) Although the paper covered citizen science and crowdsourcing topics, the

582 review did not specifically focused on these areas; (e) The methodology was a manual

583 literature review technique, and did not include techniques such as scientometrics, cognitive

584 mapping, bibliometric, and concept clustering. Despite these limitations, the research results

585 shed light for the way forward for emergency planners and gamified application designers to

586 use new technology to reform people-centric disaster planning procedures.

587 Introducing gamification techniques for emergency planning is not only a new and

588 innovative, but also an effective approach to increase community awareness and engagement

589 in emergency planning. This literature review emphasised the significance of using gamified

590 applications to motivate people to engage in disaster emergency planning in a novel way.

591 Furthermore, the review identifies current knowledge gaps in literature to be explored in

592 future research such as using gamification and crowdsourcing together—gamified

593 crowdsourcing—for a smarter disaster emergency planning.

594 References

595 Abraham, C., Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in

596 interventions. Health Psychology, 27, 379-387.

597 Abt, C.C. (1987). Serious games. University Press of America.

598 Adam, C., Bailly, C., & Dugdale, J. (2018). Communication during bushfires. International

599 Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, 10, 79-105.

600 Albertarelli, S., Fraternali, P., Herrera, S., Melenhorst, M., Novak, J., Pasini, C., Rizzoli,

601 A.E., Rottondi, C. (2018). A Survey on the design of gamified systems for energy and

602 water sustainability. Games, 9, 38 -72.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


26

603 Alcivar, I., Abad, A.G. (2016). Design and evaluation of a gamified system for ERP training.

604 Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 109-118.

605 Alessi, M., Camillò, A., Chetta, V., Giangreco, E., Soufivand, M., Storelli, D. (2015).

606 Applying idea management system approach to design and implement a collaborative

607 environment in public service related open innovation processes. Complex Systems

608 Informatics and Modeling Quarterly, 1, 26-38.

609 Ampatzidou, C., Gugerell, K., Constantinescu, T., Devisch, O., Jauschneg, M., Berger, M.

610 (2018). All work and no play? Urban Planning, 3, 34-46.

611 Aubert, A.H., Bauer, R., Lienert, J. (2018). A review of water-related serious games to

612 specify use in environmental multi-criteria decision analysis. Environmental Modelling

613 and Software, 105, 64-78.

614 Aubert, A.H., Lienert, J. (2019). Gamified online survey to elicit citizens’ preferences and

615 enhance learning for environmental decisions. Environmental Modelling and Software,

616 111, 1-12.

617 Bayas, J., See, L., Fritz, S., Sturn, T., Perger, C., Dürauer, M., Karner, M., Moorthy, I.,

618 Schepaschenko, D., Domian, D., McCallum, I. (2016). Crowdsourcing in-situ data on

619 land cover and land use using gamification and mobile technology. Remote Sensing, 8,

620 905-923.

621 Baytiyeh, H. (2017). Can disaster risk education reduce the impacts of recurring disasters on

622 developing societies? Education and Urban Society, 50, 230-245.

623 Becu, N., Amalric, M., Anselme, B., Beck, E., Bertin, X., Delay, E., Long, N., Marilleau, N.,

624 Pignon-Mussaud, C. and Rousseaux, F., (2017). Participatory simulation to foster social

625 learning on coastal flooding prevention. Environmental Modelling & Software, 98, 1-

626 11.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


27

627 Breuer, R., Sewilam, H., Nacken, H., & Pyka, C. (2017). Exploring the application of a flood

628 risk management serious game platform. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76, 93.

629 Brunet, L., Tuomisaari, J., Lavorel, S., Crouzat, E., Bierry, A., Peltola, T., & Arpin, I. (2018).

630 Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational.

631 Land Use Policy, 72, 27-34.

632 Buche, C., & Franklin, D.M. (2018). Special track on artificial intelligence in games, serious

633 games, and multimedia. In: 21st International Flairs Conference, Florida.

634 Bul, K.C., Franken, I.H., Van der Oord, S., Kato, P.M., Danckaerts, M., Vreeke, L.J.,

635 Willems, A., van Oers, H.J., van den Heuvel, R., van Slagmaat, R., Maras, A. (2015).

636 Development and user satisfaction of Plan-It-Commander. Games Health Journal, 4,

637 502-512.

638 Castellanos, S. (2016). Delivering modal-shift incentives by using gamification and

639 smartphones. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 4, 269-278.

640 Chou, C. C., Jeng, A. P., Chu, C. P., Chang, C. H., & Wang, R. G. (2018). Generation and

641 visualization of earthquake drill scripts for first responders using ontology and serious

642 game platforms. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 38, 538-554.

643 Chou, T., Bry, L.J., Comer, J.S. (2017). Multimedia field test. Cognitive and Behavioral

644 Practice, 24, 115-120.

645 Cowley, B. U., & Bateman, C. (2017). Green my place: evaluation of a serious social online

646 game designed to promote energy efficient behaviour change. International Journal of

647 Serious Games, 4, 71-91.

648 Cremers, A., Stubbé, H., van der Beek, D., Roelofs, M., & Kerstholt, J. (2015). Does playing

649 the serious game B-SaFe! make citizens more aware of man-made and natural risks in

650 their environment? Journal of Risk Research, 18, 1280-1292.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


28

651 CSS (2019). What are social simulations? Accessed on 18 July 2019 from

652 https://socialsimulations.org.

653 Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to

654 gamefulness. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek

655 Conference, Tampere.

656 Devisch, O., Poplin, A., Sofronie, S. (2016). The gamification of civic participation. Journal

657 of Urban Technology, 23, 81-102.

658 Douglass, M. (2013). The urban transition of environmental disaster governance in Asia.

659 Asia Research Institute.

660 Fletcher, S. M., Thiessen, J., Gero, A., Rumsey, M., Kuruppu, N., & Willetts, J. (2013).

661 Traditional coping strategies and disaster response. Journal of Environmental and

662 Public Health, 1-9.

663 Eränpalo, T. (2014). Exploring young people’s civic identities through gamification.

664 Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 13, 104-120.

665 EU (2012). Towards cross-border flood risk management. Accessed on 17th July 2019 from

666 http://www.floodwise.nl.

667 Feng, Y., Jonathan Ye, H., Yu, Y., Yang, C., Cui, T. (2018). Gamification artifacts and

668 crowdsourcing participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 124-136.

669 Feng, Y., Sester, M. (2018). Extraction of pluvial flood relevant volunteered geographic

670 information by deep learning from user generated texts and photos. International

671 Journal of Geo-Information, 7, 39-64.

672 Gardoni, P., Murphy, C. (2010). Gauging the societal impacts of natural disasters using a

673 capability approach. Disasters, 34, 619-636.

674 Garrison, D.R. (1997). Self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 18-33.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


29

675 Gheorghe, A.V., Vamanu, D.V. (2013). Resilience governance through serious energy

676 gaming. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Energy Web and Information, 13, 1-9.

677 Goodchild, M.F. (2007). Citizens as sensors. GeoJournal, 69, 211-221.

678 Goodchild, M.F., Glennon, J.A. (2010). Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster

679 response. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3, 231-241.

680 Greenhill, A., Holmes, K., Woodcock, J., Lintott, C., Simmons, B.D., Graham, G., Cox, J.,

681 Oh, Y., Masters, K. (2016). Playing with science. Aslib Journal of Information

682 Management, 68, 306-325.

683 Gudes, O., Kendall, E., Yigitcanlar, T., Pathak, V., Baum, S. (2010). Rethinking health

684 planning. Health Information Management Journal, 39, 18-29

685 Haferkamp, N., Kraemer, N.C., Linehan, C., & Schembri, M. (2011). Training disaster

686 communication by means of serious games in virtual environments. Entertainment

687 Computing, 2, 81-88.

688 Handmer, J., Choy, S., Kohtake, N. (2014). Updating warning systems for climate hazards.

689 Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy, 2, 70-84.

690 Harris, M.A. (2018). Beat the street. Games Health Journal, 7, 208-212.

691 Harrison, S.E., Johnson, P.A. (2016) Crowdsourcing the disaster management cycle.

692 International Journal of Infrastructure Systems for Crisis Response Management, 8,

693 17-40.

694 Henkey, T. (2017). Urban emergency management. Elsevier.

695 ISC (2019) Investigate how weather and climate change are impacting our communities and

696 environment. Accessed on 18 July 2019 from https://www.iseechange.org.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


30

697 Iturriza, M., Hernantes, J., & Labaka, L. (2019). Coming to action. Sustainability, 11, 3054-

698 3072.

699 Kankanamge, N., Yigitcanlar, T., Goonetilleke, A., Kamruzzaman, M. (2019). Can volunteer

700 crowdsourcing reduce disaster risk? International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,

701 35, 101097.

702 Kankanamge, N., Yigitcanlar, T., Goonetilleke, A., Kamruzzaman, M. (2020). Determining

703 disaster severity through social media analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk

704 Reduction, 42, 101360.

705 Kapp, K.M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. John Wiley & Sons.

706 Khoury, M., Gibson, M. J., Savic, D., Chen, A. S., Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia, L., Langford,

707 H., & Wigley, S. (2018). A serious game designed to explore and understand the

708 complexities of flood mitigation options in urban–rural catchments. Water, 10, 1885-

709 1911.

710 Kim, S. (2014). Decision support model for introduction of gamification solution using AHP.

711 Scientific World Journal, 714239, 1-7

712 Kolar, T., Čater, B. (2018). Managing group flow experiences in escape rooms. International

713 Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30, 2637-2661.

714 Korn, O., Dix, A. (2017). Educational playgrounds. Interactions, 24, 54-57.

715 Kumar, D., Shen, K., Case, B., Garg, D., Alperovich, G., Kuznetsov, D., Gupta. R., &

716 Durumeric, Z. (2019). All things considered. In: Proceedings of 28th USENIX Security

717 Symposium, Santa Clara.

718 Liteplo, A.S., Carmody, K., Fields, M.J., Liu, R.B., Lewiss, R.E. (2018). SonoGames.

719 Journal of Ultrasound Medicine, 37, 2491-2496.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


31

720 Liu, S.B. (2014). Crisis crowdsourcing framework. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,

721 23, 389-443.

722 Lue, E., Wilson, J.P., Curtis, A. (2014). Conducting disaster damage assessments with spatial

723 video, experts and citizens. Applied Geography, 52, 46-54.

724 Madani, K., Pierce, T. W., & Mirchi, A. (2017). Serious games on environmental

725 management. Sustainable Cities and Society, 29, 1-11.

726 Mallon, M. (2013). Gaming and gamification. Public Services Quarterly, 9, 210-221.

727 Matallaoui, A., Hanner, N., Zarnekow, R. (2017). Introduction to gamification. In:

728 Gamification (pp. 3-18). Springer.

729 McCormick, S. (2016). New tools for emergency managers. Disasters, 40, 207-225.

730 McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken. Penguin.

731 Mechler, R. (2016). Reviewing estimates of the economic efficiency of disaster risk

732 management. Natural Hazards, 81, 2121-2147.

733 Meesters, K., & Van de Walle, B. (2014). Serious gaming for user centered innovation and

734 adoption of disaster response information systems. International Journal of Information

735 Systems for Crisis Response and Management, 6, 1-15.

736 Meesters, K. Olthof, L. Van de Walle, B. (2014). Disaster in my backyard. In: Proceedings of

737 the European Conference on Games Based Learning, Amsterdam.

738 Mendler de Suarez, J., Suarez, P., Bachofen, C., Fortugno, N., Goentzel, J., Gonçalves, P.,

739 Grist, N., Macklin, C., Pfeifer, K., Schweizer, S. (2012). Games for a new climate.

740 Boston University.

741 Metaxiotis, K. Carrillo, F.J. & Yigitcanlar, T., (2010). Knowledge-based development for

742 cities and societies. IGI Global.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


32

743 Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Maedche, A. (2017). Gamified

744 crowdsourcing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 106, 26-43.

745 Olszewski, R., Palka, P., Turek, A. (2018). Solving smart city transport problems by

746 designing carpooling gamification schemes with multi-agent systems. Sensors, 18, 1-

747 25.

748 Onencan, A., Kortmann, R., Kulei, F., & Enserin, B. (2016a). MAFURIKO: Design of Nzoia

749 basin location-based flood game. Procedia Engineering, 159, 133-140.

750 Onencan, A., Van de Walle, B., Enserink, B., Chelang’a, J., & Kulei, F. (2016b). WeShareIt

751 game. Procedia Engineering, 159, 307-315.

752 Pacauskas, D., Rajala, R., Westerlund, M., Mäntymäki, M. (2018). Harnessing user

753 innovation for social media marketing. International Journal of Information

754 Management, 43, 319.

755 Parker, H.R., Cornforth, R.J., Suarez, P., Allen, M.R., Boyd, E., James, R., Jones, R.G., Otto,

756 F.E., Walton, P. (2016). Using a game to engage stakeholders in extreme event

757 attribution science. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 7, 353-365.

758 Pitot, M., Yigitcanlar, T., Sipe, N., & Evans, R. (2006). Land use & public transport

759 accessibility index tool. In: ATRF06 Forum. Gold Coast.

760 Prandi, C., Nisi, V., Salomoni, P., Nunes, N.J., Roccetti, M. (2015). Mapping urban

761 accessibility. ICST Transactions on Ambient Systems, 2, 1-10.

762 Prandi, C., Roccetti, M., Salomoni, P., Nisi, V., Nunes, N. (2017). Fighting exclusion.

763 Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76, 4951-4979.

764 Prandi, C., Melis, A., Prandini, M., Delnevo, G., Monti, L., Mirri, S., Salomoni, P. (2019).

765 Gamifying cultural experiences across the urban environment. Multimedia Tools and

766 Applications, 78, 3341-3364.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


33

767 Prestopnik, N., Crowston, K., Wang, J. (2017). Gamers, citizen scientists, and data.

768 Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 254-268.

769 Prestopnik, N.R., Tang, J. (2015). Points, stories, worlds, and diegesis. Computers in Human

770 Behavior, 52, 492-506.

771 Radianti, J., Tronslien, M.N., Thomassen, K.K., Moland, M.E., & Kulmus, C.A. (2017).

772 Serious game design for flooding triggered by extreme weather. International Journal

773 of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, 9, 55-75.

774 Ramadan, Z. (2018). The gamification of trust. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36, 93-

775 107.

776 Rasmusen, E., & Blackwell, B. (1994). Games and information. Blackwell.

777 RCCC (2019a). Decisions for the decade. Accessed on 20 July 2019 from

778 https://www.climatecentre.org/resources-games/games/4/decisions-for-the-decade.

779 RCCC (2019b). Playing for predictions. Accessed on 20 July 2019 from

780 https://climatecentre.org/resources-games/games/2/paying-for-predictions.

781 Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Avramides, K., de Freitas, S., Memarzia, K. (2009). Societal impact

782 of a serious game on raising public awareness. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM

783 SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games, New Orleans.

784 Rehm, S., Foth, M., Mitchell, P. (2018). DoGood. AI & Society, 33, 27-37.

785 Rizzoli, A., Castelletti, A., Fraternali, P., Novak, J. (2018). SmartH2O, demonstrating the

786 impact of gamification technologies for saving water. Computer Science, Research and

787 Development, 33, 275-276.

788 Robinson, L.A., Turner, I.J., & Sweet, M.J. (2018). The use of gamification in the teaching of

789 disease epidemics and pandemics. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365,111-115.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


34

790 Rodela, R., Ligtenberg, A., & Bosma, R. (2019). Conceptualizing serious games as a

791 learning-based intervention in the context of natural resources and environmental

792 governance. Water, 11, 245-260.

793 Rottz, M., Sell, D., Pacheco, R., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2019). Digital commons and citizen

794 coproduction in smart cities. Energies, 12, 2813.

795 Ryan, R.M., Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Contemporary

796 Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

797 Sanford, K., Starr, L.J., Merkel, L., & Bonsor-Kurki, S. (2015). Serious games. E-Learning

798 and Digital Media, 12, 90-106.

799 Seaborn, K., Fels, D.I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action. International Journal of

800 Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.

801 Shi, M., Xu, W., Gao, L., Kang, Z., Ning, N., Liu, C., Liang, C., Sun, H., Jiao, M., Liang, L.,

802 Li, Y., Cui, Y., Zhao, X., Fei, J., Wei, Q., Yi, M., Hao, Y., Wu, Q. (2018). Emergency

803 volunteering willingness and participation. BMJ Open, 8. 1-11.

804 Simoes, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6

805 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 345-353.

806 Solinska-Nowak, A., Magnuszewski, P., Curl, M., French, A., Keating, A., Mochizuki, J.,

807 Liu, W., Mechler, R., Kulakowska, M. and Jarzabek, L. (2018). An overview of serious

808 games for disaster risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,

809 31, 1013-1029.

810 Sotto, D., Philippi, A., Yigitcanlar, T., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2019). Aligning urban policy

811 with climate action in the global south. Energies, 12, 3418.

812 SSEC (2019). Disaster detector. Accessed on 18 July 2019 from https://ssec.si.edu/disaster-

813 detector.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


35

814 Suarez, P. (2015). Rethinking engagement. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information,

815 4, 1729-1749.

816 Taillandier, F., & Adam, C. (2018). Games ready to use. Simulation & Gaming, 49, 441-470.

817 Tanes, Z. (2017). Shall we play again? Behaviour & Information Technology, 36, 1037-1045.

818 Tanes, Z., & Cho, H. (2013). Goal setting outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 29,

819 858-869.

820 Tinati, R., Luczak-Roesch, M., Simperl, E., Hall, W. (2017). An investigation of player

821 motivations in Eyewire. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 527-540.

822 Tomaszewski, B., & Schwartz, D.I. (2017) Critical spatial thinking and serious geogames,

823 AGILE Workshop on Geogames and Geoplay, Wageningen

824 UNISDR (2018). Stop disasters. Accessed on 18 July 2019 from

825 http://www.stopdisastersgame.org.

826 Wahyudin, D., Hasegawa, S., & Kamaludin, A. (2017). Students’ viewpoint of computer

827 game for training in Indonesian universities and high schools. Education and

828 Information Technologies, 22, 1927-1945.

829 Wang, R.Q., Mao, H., Wang, Y., Rae, C., Shaw, W. (2018). Hyper-resolution monitoring of

830 urban flooding with social media and crowdsourcing data. Computers & Geosciences,

831 111, 139-147.

832 Wazny, K. (2018). Applications of crowdsourcing in health. Journal of Global Health, 8, 1-

833 20.

834 Wells, S., Kotkanen, H., Schlafli, M., Gabrielli, S., Masthoff, J., Jylhä, A., Forbes, P. (2014).

835 Towards an applied gamification model for tracking, managing and encouraging

836 sustainable travel behaviours. ICST Transactions on Ambient Systems, 1, 1-9.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


36

837 Wemyss, D., Castri, R., Cellina, F., De Luca, V., Lobsiger-Kägi, E., Carabias, V. (2018).

838 Examining community-level collaborative vs. competitive approaches to enhance

839 household electricity-saving behavior. Energy Efficiency, 1, 1-19.

840 Wemyss, D., Cellina, F., Lobsiger-Kägi, E., de Luca, V., Castri, R. (2019). Does it last?

841 Energy Research & Social Science, 47, 16-27.

842 Werbach, K. (2014). (Re)defining gamification. In: International conference on persuasive

843 technology (pp. 266-272). Springer.

844 Werbach, K., Hunter, D. (2012). For the win. Wharton Digital Press.

845 Yiannakoulias, N., Gordon, J.N., Darlington, J.C. (2020). The decision game. Journal of Risk

846 Research, 23, 81-94.

847 Yigitcanlar, T. (2006). Australian local governments’ practice and prospects with online

848 planning. URISA Journal, 18, 7-17.

849 Yigitcanlar, T. (2009). Planning for smart urban ecosystems. Theoretical and Empirical

850 Researches in Urban Management, 4, 5-21.

851 Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Teriman, S. (2015). Neighborhood sustainability

852 assessment. Sustainability, 7, 2570-2602.

853 Yigitcanlar, T. (2016). Technology and the city: systems, applications and implications.

854 Routledge.

855 Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Buys, L., Ioppolo, G., Sabatini-Marques, J., Costa, E.,

856 Yun, J. (2018). Understanding ‘smart cities’. Cities, 81, 145-160.

857 Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M. (2019). Smart cities and mobility. Journal of Urban

858 Technology, 26, 21-46.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


37

859 Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Foth, M., Sabatini-Marques, J., Costa, E., Ioppolo, G.

860 (2019). Can cities become smart without being sustainable? Sustainable Cities and

861 Society, 45, 348-365.

862 Yoon, K., Jin, D.Y. (2016). The gamification of mobile communication among young

863 smartphone users in Seoul. Asiascape: Digital Asia, 3, 60-78.

864 Yuan, F., Liu, R. (2018). Feasibility study of using crowdsourcing to identify critical affected

865 areas for rapid damage assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,

866 28, 758-767.

867 Zichermann, G., Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design. O'Reilly Media.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


38

Figure 1: Literature selection procedure


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


39

Figure 2: Different disaster awareness raising tools and their deliverables


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


40

Table 1: Definitions and themes of gamification

Literature Definition Theme

Magaña & Muñoz-Organero (2015)

Gamification consists of using game techniques in a

non-game context to perform arduous and repetitive activities

Game techniques, non-game contexts, arduous, and repetitive activities

Eränpalo (2014) Gamification is incorporating game-like elements, such as scoring, objectives and winning, as part of formal learning

Game-like elements, learning

Kim (2014) Gamification means the use of various elements of game design in non-game contexts including workplace collaboration, marketing, education, military, and medical services

Game design elements, non-game context

Wells et al. (2014) Gamification is the application of game-oriented design approaches and or game-inspired mechanics to otherwise non-game contexts

Game design approaches, inspiration, non-game contexts

Kapp (2012) Gamification is using game-based mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems

Game-based mechanics, game thinking, motivation, learning, problem solving

Mendler de Suarez et al. (2012)

Gamification is the use of games in everything from entertainment to advertising, corporate retreats to group therapy, from online and video games to crowd-sourced games—and as an expression of new frontiers in human culture

Games, entertainment

Werbach & Hunter (2012)

Gamification is the use of game elements and game-design techniques in non-game contexts

Game elements, game-design techniques, non-game contexts

Deterding et al. (2011)

Gamification as the use of game design elements in non-game contexts

Game design elements, non-game contexts

Zichermann & Cunningham (2011)

Gamification is the process of game-thinking and game mechanics to engage users and solve problems

Game-thinking, game mechanics, engagement, problem solving


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


41

Table 2: Selection criteria for the formulation of categories

Selection criteria DetailsDetermine Determine the key areas of using gamified applications in disaster planning by using the

eye-balling technique in the selected literatureDetect Detect the key areas of using gamified applications to motivate community engagement in

disaster planningIdentify Identify key objectives, motivation types, outcomes of using gamified applications in

disaster planning Group Group the identified key uses with similarities to form broader potential categories

containing adequate number of literature piecesShortlist Shortlist the categories and crosscheck the reliability of these categories with the other

published gamified applications in disaster planning related literature and review studiesReconsider Reconsider the shortlisted categories by going through the selected and reviewed literature

one more timeConfirm Confirm the selection and classification of the categories and finalise the formulation of

categoriesCategorise Place the reviewed literature pieces under the determined categories—in the case of

overlaps, determine the most relevant fit for the literature in one of the categories


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


42

Table 3: Gamified applications for research

Objectives Motivations OutcomesLiteratureGamified applications

for researchIntrinsic

motivationExtrinsic

motivationContinuous (behavioural

change)Dichotomous (win

or lose)

Disaster-related gamified applications for research

Yiannakoulias et al., 2020 x x x xWemyss et al., 2019 x x x xAlbertarelli et al., 2018 x x x xBrunet et al., 2018 x x x xKhoury et al., 2018 x x x x Millbrook serious game Wazny, 2018 x x x x GeoChat, HealthMap, OutbreaksNearMe Wemyss et al., 2018 x x x x xChou et al, 2017 x x x xKorn & Dix, 2017 x x xPrestopnik et al., 2017 x x x x Old WeatherTinati et al., 2017 x x x x xAlcivar & Abad, 2016 x x x xMani et al., 2016 x x x x St. Vincent’s Volcano gameSanford et al., 2015 x x x Ayiti: The Cost of Life Suarez, 2015 x x x x InaSAFE; Digital UpRiverTotal 15 14 12 13 6Note: Other gamified applications identified through the links/information/references given in the reviewed articles

SchaVis (Breuer et al., 2017); SerGIS: Malmö Flood Scenario (Tomaszewski & Schwartz, 2017); SimFlood (Breuer et al., 2017); HINT!’, ‘AXmap’ (Prandi et al., 2015); Floodsim (Rebolledo-Mendez et al., 2009)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


43

Table 4: Gamified applications for education

Objectives Motivations OutcomesLiteratureGamified applications for

educationIntrinsic

motivationExtrinsic


change)Dichotomous (win or lose)

Disaster-related gamified applications

for education Iturriza et al., 2019 x x xAdam et al., 2018 x x x xAmpatzidou et al., 2018 x x x xChou et al., 2018 x x x EDSS Rehm et al., 2018 x x x xRobinson et al., 2018 x x x xSolinska-Nowak et al., 2018 x xTaillandier & Adam, 2018 x x x x Sprite; Breuer et al., 2017 x x x x Flood Ranger;

SeCom2.0Cowley & Bateman, 2017 x x x xMadani et al., 2017 x x xPrandi et al., 2017 x x x xRadianti et al., 2017 x x x xTanes Z. 2017 x x x x A Quake Story Wahyudin et al., 2017 x x xDevisch et al., 2016 x x x xGreenhill et al., 2016 x x x xParker et al., 2016 x x xAlessi et al., 2015 x x xCremers et al., 2015 x x x B-SaFe! Prestopnik & Tang, 2015 x x x xGheorghe & Vamanu, 2013 x x xSimoes et al., 2013 x x x xTanes & Cho, 2013 x x x x Beat the quake;Haferkamp et al., 2011 x x x x Dread-Ed Total 25 23 17 20 5Note: Other gamified applications identified through the links/information/references given in the reviewed articles

Disaster Detector (SSEC, 2019); Extreme Event Game (NAS, 2018); Stop disasters! (UNISDR, 2018);); LittoSIM (Becu et al., 2017); Magnitude (Wahyudin et al., 2017); Disaster Master (Gampell & Gaillard, 2016); Levee Patroller (Onencan et al., 2016b); Sai Fah- The flood fighter (Mani et al., 2016); Severe Weather Preparedness Adventure: Young Meteorologist Game (Gampell & Gaillard, 2016); WeShareIt (Onencan et al., 2016b); Disaster in my Backyard (Meesters & Walle, 2014; Meesters et al., 2014)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


44

Table 5: Gamified applications for intervention

Objectives Motivations OutcomesLiteratureGamified applications for

interventionIntrinsic

motivationExtrinsic


change)Dichotomous (win or lose)

Aubert & Lienert, 2019 x x x x xRodela et al., 2019 x x x xKolar & Cater, 2018 x x x xRamadan, 2018 x x x xSolinska-Nowak et al., 2018 x xCowley & Bateman, 2017 x x x xWells et al., 2014 x x x xTotal 7 6 6 6 2Note: Gamified applications identified through the links/information/references given in the reviewed articles

I See Change (ISC, 2019); Forest@Risk (CSS, 2019); Flood-wise (EU, 2012)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


45

Table 6: Types of intrinsic motivations of gamification

Intrinsic motivation Literature #

Learn/gain awareness (possibility to learn new skills, new knowledge while playing the game)

Aubert & Lienert, 2019; Wemyss et al., 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Aubert et al., 2018; Brunet et al., 2018; Wazny, 2018; Korn & Dix, 2017; Prestopnik et al., 2017; Tinati et al., 2017; Bayas et al., 2016; Tanes Z, 2017; Alcivar & Abad, 2016; Adam et al., 2018; Chou et al., 2018; Parker et al., 2016; Meesters K., 2014; Gheorghe & Vamanu, 2013

17

Participation/contribution (intend to contribute to the project with the sole intention of contributing to the project–pride in contribution)

Aubert & Lienert, 2019; Prandi et al., 2019; Wemyss et al., 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Aubert et al., 2018; Robinson et al., 2018; Wemyss et al., 2018; Madani et al., 2017; Tanes Z, 2017; Tinati et al., 2017; Wahyudin et al., 2017; Bayas et al., 2016; Mani et al., 2016; Alessi et al., 2015; Simoes et al., 2013

15

Leisure/fun (playing a serious game to obtain fun)

Aubert & Lienert, 2019; Prandi et al., 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Aubert et al., 2018; Brunet et al., 2018; Kolar & Cater, 2018; Tinati et al., 2017; Wahyudin et al., 2017; Alcivar & Abad, 2016

9

Exploration (interested in exploring new contents, people, and tools)

Albertarelli et al., 2018; Aubert et al., 2018; Cremers et al., 2015; Wahyudin et al., 2017; Robinson et al., 2018; Prestopnik & Tang, 2015

6

Curiosity (quizzes, puzzles, adventure games)

Adam et al., 2018; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Chou et al., 2018; Tinati et al., 2017; Alcivar & Abad, 2016; Mani et al., 2016

6

Social belonging/responsibility/ interaction/altruism(feeling of serving to the society, sense of social connection/interaction)

Robinson et al., 2018; Madani et al., 2017; Tinati et al., 2017; Cremers et al., 2015; Meesters K., 2014; Simoes et al., 2013

6

Excitement (interest to see new things, and gain adventure like feeling)

Kolar & Cater, 2018; Madani et al., 2017; Prestopnik & Tang, 2015 3

Enjoy/entertainment(gaining a balance feeling of learning and entertainment)

Kolar & Čater, 2018; Greenhill et al., 2016; Parker et al., 2016 3

Personal interest (engage due to personal preferences/choices)

Robinson et al., 2018; Tinati et al., 2017; Wells et al., 2014 3

Spontaneity (engage in a particular task as a habit)

Vanolo, 2018; Prandi et al., 2015; Wells et al., 2014 3


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


46

Table 7: Types of extrinsic motivations of gamification

Extrinsic motivation Literature #

Score (reputation score/resilience score)

Aubert & Lienert, 2019; Prandi et al., 2019; Wemyss et al., 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Aubert et al., 2018; Rehm et al., 2018; Taillandier & Adam, 2018; Wazny, 2018; Beza et al., 2017; Chou et al., 2017; Korn & Dix, 2017; Prestopnik et al, 2017; Tinati et al., 2017; Bayas et al., 2016; Magaña & Muñoz-Organero, 2015; Sanford et al., 2015; Suarez, 2015; Wells et al., 2014; Haferkamp et al., 2011

19

Feedbacks Aubert & Lienert, 2019; Wemyss et al., 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Ampatzidou et al., 2018; Aubert et al., 2018; Kolar & Cater, 2018; Rizzoli et al., 2018; Wazny, 2018; Wemyss et al., 2018; Beza et al., 2017; Korn & Dix, 2017; Rehm et al., 2017; Tinati et al., 2017; Bayas et al., 2016; Alessi et al., 2015; Magaña & Muñoz-Organero, 2015; Lorenzi et al., 2014; Rushkoff, 2013

18

Rewards/tokens Wemyss et al., 2019; Aubert et al., 2018; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Kolar & Cater, 2018; Rehm et al., 2018; Wazny, 2018; Wemyss et al., 2018; Beza et al., 2017; Prandi et al., 2017; Prestopnik et al., 2017; Radianti et al., 2017; Tinati et al., 2017; Devisch et al., 2016; Lorenzi et al., 2014; Wells et al., 2014; Simoes et al., 2013

16

Ranking/rating Aubert & Lienert, 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Ampatzidou et al., 2018; Tinati et al., 2018; Wazny, 2018; Beza et al., 2017; Chou et al., 2017; Prestopnik et al., 2017; Alessi et al., 2015; Magaña & Muñoz-Organero, 2015; Wells et al., 2014; Mallon, 2013

13

Badges Albertarelli et al., 2018; Ampatzidou et al., 2018; Tinati et al., 2018; Beza et al., 2017; Korn & Dix, 2017; Prestopnik et al., 2017; Rehm et al., 2017; Bayas et al., 2016; Yoon & Jin, 2016; Magaña & Muñoz-Organero, 2015; Prestopnik & Tang, 2015; Wells et al., 2014; Lorenzi et al., 2014

13

Goal setting Wemyss et al., 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Chou et al., 2018; Rehm et al., 2018; Rizzoli et al., 2018; Tinati et al., 2018; Wemyss et al., 2018; Ampatzidou et al., 2017; Yoon & Jin, 2016; Sanford et al., 2015; Wells et al., 2014

11

Role playing Albertarelli et al., 2018; Ampatzidou et al., 2018; Aubert et al., 2018; Kolar & Cater, 2018; Wemyss et al., 2018; Beza et al., 2017; Devisch et al., 2016; Yoon & Jin, 2016; Rushkoff, 2013

9

Leader board Albertarelli et al., 2018; Wazny, 2018; Prestopnik et al., 2017; Rehm et al., 2018; Tinati et al., 2017; Bayas et al., 2016; Magaña & Muñoz-Organero, 2015

7

Story-driven, story-telling, story sharing

Aubert & Lienert, 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Ampatzidou et al., 2018; Prestopnik et al., 2017; Devisch et al., 2016; Cremers et al., 2015

6

Rating/satisfaction Albertarelli et al., 2018; Wemyss et al., 2018; Chou et al., 2017; Alessi et al., 2015; Wells et al., 2014

5

Bonus Wemyss et al., 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Wemyss et al., 2018; Prestopnik et al., 2017; Lorenzi et al., 2014

5

Chat/real-time chat Wemyss et al., 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Tinati et al., 2017; Devisch et al., 2016; Bayas et al., 2016

5

Points Albertarelli et al., 2018; Radianti et al., 2017; Tinati et al., 2017; Bayas et al., 2016 4Gift vouchers Wemyss et al., 2019; Albertarelli et al., 2018; Prandi et al., 2017 4


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Nayomi Kankanamge Doctoral Researcher School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment Queensland University of Technology 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia Tel: +61.4.3288.2645 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4529-7042 Tan Yigitcanlar* Associate Professor School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment Queensland University of Technology 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia Tel: +61.7.3138.2418 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7262-7118 * Corresponding Author Ashantha Goonetilleke Professor School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment Queensland University of Technology 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia Tel: +61.7.3138.1539 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8783-1223 Md. Kamruzzaman Associate Professor Faculty of Art, Design & Architecture Monash University 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East, VIC 3145, Australia Tel: +61.3.9903.4315 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7113-942X

mailto:[email protected]




Nayomi Kankanamge is a doctoral researcher at the Queensland University of Technology,

Australia. Her research focuses on investigating the potential use/adoption of innovative technologies

in urban emergency services for a more effective and efficient disaster management practice.

Tan Yigitcanlar is an associate professor of urban studies and planning at the Queensland University

of Technology, Australia. His research aims to address the contemporary urban challenges, focuses on

the following themes: Smart technologies, communities, cities and urbanism; Knowledge-based

development of cities and innovation districts, and; Sustainable and resilient cities, communities and

urban ecosystems.

Ashantha Goonetilleke is a professor in water/environmental engineering at Queensland University

of Technology, Australia with an enduring commitment to make the water environment more

sustainable and contribute to its adaptation to climate change.

Md. Kamruzzaman is an associate professor at the Monash University, Australia. His research

interests include autonomous vehicles, transport disadvantage, travel behaviour, planning and decision

support systems, and geographic information systems application in planning.

international journal of disaster resilience in the built ... · 12 research, and intervention...

Documents