Game Over or Jumping to the Next Level? How Playing the Serious Game ‘Mobility Safari’ Instigates Social Learning for a Smart Mobility Transition in Vienna

  • Katharina GugerellEmail author
  • Mario Platzer
  • Martina Jauschneg
  • Cristina Ampatzidou
  • Martin Berger
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


Serious games and gaming are increasingly considered as the magic bullet for improved stakeholder involvement and citizen engagement in urban planning and governance. They are also discussed as means to instigate learning and capacity building and to raise the awareness of citizens and stakeholders about various urban topics. These learning processes can unfold in various different formats, such as social or game-based learning. This chapter investigates if playing the serious game prototype ‘Mobility Safari’ supports such processes. Mobility Safari is a serious-game prototype developed for the City of Vienna. The game is targeting Vienna’s ambition to become a smart city. One focal point of this ambition concerns the change towards a more sustainable mobility system. Our analysis illustrates that the serious game indeed evokes learning processes during the gameplay and the debriefing, covering a broad range of learning activities and social interaction. Incomplete rule-sets and un-governed situations trigger discussions in which players confront the game experience with their actual real-world practices. Our analysis suggests that games are indeed suitable means for informing citizens and supporting capacity-building processes in participatory-planning approaches. However, they need a careful design, facilitation and sufficient time for a debriefing so that players can reflect on the game experience. This reflection is crucial to transform the game experience into a deeper learning experience that is meaningful for real-world contexts.


Serious games Urban governance Civic learning Sustainable mobility Smart city Vienna 



The article is a deliverable of the research project “Playing with Urban Complexity. Using co-located serious games to reduce the urban carbon footprint among young adults” and is funded by JPI Urban Europe.


  1. Avelino, F., Grin, J., Pel, B., & Jhagroe, S. (2016). The politics of sustainability transitions. Journal of Environmental Policy Planning, 18, 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banister, D., & Thurstain-Goodwin, M. (2011). Quantification of the non-transport benefits resulting from rail investment. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(2), 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batty, P., Palacin, R., & González-Gil, A. (2015). Challenges and opportunities in developing urban modal shift. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. van Bilsen, A., Bekebrede, G., & Mayer, I. S. (2010). Understanding complex adaptive systems by playing games. Informatics in Education, 9(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  5. Bluemink, J., Hämäläinen, R., Manninen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2010). Group-level analysis on multiplayer game collaboration: how do the individuals shape the group interaction? Interactive Learning Environments, 18 (November 2012), 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bulkeley, H., & Castan Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. City of Vienna. (2016). Smart City Wien—Framework Strategy, Vienna. Accessed 06 August 2017.
  8. City of Vienna. (2014). STEP 2025 Fachkonzept MOBILITÄT. Accessed 06 August 2017.
  9. Cooper, S., Khatib, F., Treuille, A., Barbero, J., Lee, J., Beenen, M., et al. (2010). Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature, 466(7307), 756–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crookall, D. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 898–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cumming, G. S., Olsson, P., Chapin, F. S., & Holling, C. S. (2012). Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1139–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devisch, O., Diephuis, J., Gugerell, K., Berger, M., Jauschneg, M., Constantinescu, T., et al. (2015). Game mechanics for civic participation in digitized cities. In Partanen Jenni (Ed.), Complexity and digitalization of cities—challenges for urban planning and design. AESOP: Tampere.Google Scholar
  13. Devisch, O., Poplin, A., & Sofronie, S. (2016). The gamification of civic participation: Two experiments in improving the skills of citizens to reflect collectively on spatial issues. Journal of Urban Technology, 732, 1–22.Google Scholar
  14. Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1976). Social interaction and cognitive development: Further evidence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6(2), 245–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dörner, R., Martin-Niedecken, A. L., Kocher, M., Baranowski, T., Kickmeier-Rust, M., Göbel, S., et al. (2016). Contributing disciplines. In R. Dörner, S. Göbel, W. Effelsberg & J. Wiemeyer (Eds.), Serious games: Foundations, concepts and practise (pp. 35–82). Chams: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2013). Digital game-based learning: Impact of instructions and feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 67, 156–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The role of partnerships in “realising” urban sustainability in Rotterdam’s city ports area, the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 406–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gee, J. P. (2005). Why are videogames good for learning? Spectrum, 32, 25–32.Google Scholar
  19. Geels, F. (2011a). Role of cities in technological transitions. In H. Bulkeley, V. Castán Broto, M. Hodson & S. Marvin (Eds.), Cities and low carbon transitions (pp. 13–28). London & New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  20. Geels, F. (2011b). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteinterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gordon, E., & Baldwin-Philippi, J. (2014). Playful Civic Learning: Enabling Reflection and Lateral Trust in Game-based Public Participation. International Journal of Communication, 8, 759–786.Google Scholar
  23. Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grusec, J. E. (1992). Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of robert sears and albert bandura. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 776–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gugerell, K., Höffken, S., & Netsch, S. (Eds.). (2017). Play the city. Stadt und Spiel, Die PlanerIn, 38(2), 1–78.Google Scholar
  26. Gugerell, K., & Zuidema, C. (2017). Gaming for the energy transition. Experimenting and learning in co-designing a serious game prototype. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 117–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hämäläinen, R. (2011). Using a game environment to foster collaborative learning: A design-based study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20 (March 2015), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huizinga, J. (1999). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Abingdon: Routledge Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Hummel, H. G. K., Van Houcke, J., Nadolski, R. J., Van Der Hiele, T., Kurvers, H., & Löhr, A. (2011). Scripted collaboration in serious gaming for complex learning: Effects of multiple perspectives when acquiring water management skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1029–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hunecke, M., Haustein, S., Bohler, S., & Grischkat, S. (2010). Attitude-based target groups to reduce the ecological impact of daily mobility behavior. Environment and Behavior, 42, 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI-04 Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 25–29 July, San Jose California. Accessed 06 August 2017.
  34. IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014—Synthesis Report. Accessed 06 August 2017.
  35. Juul, J. (2011). Half real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Juul, J. (2016). The art of failure: An essay on the pain of playing video games. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  37. Ke, F. (2016). Designing and integrating purposeful learning in game play: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kleinhans, R., Van Ham, M., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2015). Using social media and mobile technologies to foster engagement and Self-organization in participatory urban planning and neighbourhood governance. Planning Practice & Research, 30(3), 237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klinger, T., & Lanzendorf, M. (2016). Moving between mobility cultures: What affects the travel behavior of new residents? Transportation, 43(2), 243–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lederman, L. (1992). Debriefing: Toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lesteven, G. (2014, April). Behavioural responses to traffic congestion. In Transport Research Arena (TRA) 5th Conference: Proceedings of Transport Solutions from Research to Deployment (pp. 14–17). Paris.Google Scholar
  42. Lieberman, D. (2006). What can we learn from playing interactive games? (pp. 379–397). Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences.Google Scholar
  43. Lozano, R. (2007). Collaboration as a pathway for sustainability. Sustainable Development, 381(March), 370–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lozano, R. (2014). Creativity and organizational learning as means to foster sustainability. Sustainable Development, 22(3), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  46. Mayer, I. S., van Bueren, E. M., Bots, P. W. G., van der Voort, H., & Seijdel, R. (2005). Collaborative decisionmaking for sustainable urban renewal projects: A simulation—gaming approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(3), 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
  48. Medema, W., Furber, A., Adamowski, J., Zhou, Q., & Mayer, I. (2016). Exploring the potential impact of serious games on social learning and stakeholder collaborations for transboundary watershed management of the St Lawrence River Basin. . Water, 8(5), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mohammed, I., & Pruyt, E. (2014). Speeding up energy transitions: Gaming towards sustainability in the Dutch built environment. Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, 24, 223–237.Google Scholar
  50. Neef, R., Verweij, S., Gugerell, K., & Moen, P. (2017). Wegwijs in Living Labs in Infrastructuur en Ruimtelijke Planning. Groningen: Een Theoretische en Empirische Verkenning.Google Scholar
  51. Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Papert, S. (1987). Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education. National Science Foundation NSF Award Search: Award # 8751190, 1–2. Accessed 06 August 2017.
  53. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  54. Piaget, J. (1962). Play dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  55. Piaget, J. (1981). Meine Theorie der geistigen Entwicklung. Weinheim Basel: BELTZ.Google Scholar
  56. Poplin, A. (2014). Digital serious game for urban planning: “B3-design your marketplace!”. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41(3), 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me Mom, I’m learning!: How computer and video games are preparing your kids for twenty-first century success and how you can help! Minnesota Paragon House, 27–51.Google Scholar
  58. Raphael, C., Bachen, C., Lynn, K.-M., Baldwin-Philippi, J., & McKee, K. A. (2010). Games for civic learning: A conceptual framework and agenda for research and design. Games and Culture, 5(2), 199–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play. Game Design Fundamentals, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schauppenlehner, T., Eder, R., Gabriel, S., Salak, B., & Muhar, A. (2016). Enabling pupils to contribute to societal challenges and participatory processes. In Proceedings of International Journal of E-Planning Research, 31 March–4 April. Lisbon Portugal.Google Scholar
  61. Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi delta kappan, 87(2), 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tan, E. (2014). Negotiation and Design for the Self-Organizing City. Gaming as a method for Urban Desgin (Ph.d. Thesis). TU Delft. Accessed 06 August 2017.
  63. Thøgersen, J. (2009). Promoting public transport as a subscription service: Effects of a free month travel card. Transport Policy, 16(6), 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Exel, N. J. A., & Rietveld, P. (2009). Could you also have made this trip by another mode? An investigation of perceived travel possibilities of car and train travellers on the main travel corridors to the city of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(4), 374–385.Google Scholar
  65. Ventura, M., Shute, V., & Kim, Y. J. (2013). Assessment and learning of qualitative physics in Newton’ s playground. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wendel, V., & Konert, J. (2016). Multiplayer serious games. In R. Dörner, S. Göbel, W. Effelsberg & J. Wiemeyer (Eds.), Serious games. foundations, concepts and practise (pp. 211–242). Chams: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Winn, B. M. (2009). The design, play and experience framework. In E. Ferdig Richard (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 1010–1024). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wittmayer, J. M., Schäpke, N., van Steenbergen, F., & Omann, I. (2014). Making sense of sustainability transitions locally: How action research contributes to addressing societal challenges. Critical Policy Studies, 8(4), 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katharina Gugerell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mario Platzer
    • 2
  • Martina Jauschneg
    • 2
  • Cristina Ampatzidou
    • 1
  • Martin Berger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Spatial Planning and EnvironmentUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Green City Lab ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations