Contextual Support for Emergency Management Training: Challenges for Simulation and Serious Games

  • Ilona HeldalEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10257)


Training collaboration and work in various Emergency Management (EM) can be supported by different technologies, in particular simulations and serious games (SSGs). This paper is based on an investigation of why the promising SSG technologies can be difficult to use, even a long time after their procurement by the user organizations. The focus is on firefighter training. It is based on interviews and observations with major stakeholders from procuring organizations, SSG developers and researchers from seven countries. The results confirm the possible benefits of SSGs, but also highlight an urgent need for new approaches to better integrate these technologies into educational practices in local organizations. To experience meaningful training, there is a need to determine relevant training situations, define recognizable contexts, learning goals and user values. Only when this is done they might successfully be illustrated via the available SSGs.


Emergency management Simulation Serious games Training Representations Context 



The author would like to thank the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency for making it possible to carry out this study, Cecilia Hammar Wijkmark, Lena Pareto for much help and comments, and the responders who allocated time and attention for the interviews or helped with the observations.


  1. 1.
    Ott, M., Freina, L.: A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state-of-the-art and perspectives. In: Conference Proceedings of eLearning and Software for Education (eLSE), pp 133–141. Universitatea Nationala de Aparare Carol I (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Backlund, P., Hendrix, M.: Educational games - are they worth the effort? A literature survey of the effectiveness of serious games. In: 5th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-GAMES). IEEE Press (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chittaro, L., Sioni, R.: Serious games for emergency preparedness: evaluation of an interactive vs. a non-interactive simulation of a terror attack. Comput. Hum. Behav. 50, 508–519 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crookall, D.: Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simul. Gaming 41(6), 898–920 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Molka-Danielsen, J., et al.: Creating safe and effective learning environment for emergency management training using virtual reality. In: Norsk konferanse for organisasjoners bruk av IT (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wijkmark, C.H., Heldal, I.: Kartläggning av State-of-the-art inom Simulering och Serious Games för Utbildning för Räddningstjänsten (in Swedish, Eng.: State-of-the-art within Simulation and Serious Games for Educating Firefighters). Report at University of Skövde School of Informatics, 80 p. (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slater, M., Wilbur, S.: A framework for immersive virtual environments (five): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleop. Virt. Environ. 6(6), 603–616 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heldal, I.: The usability of collaborative virtual environments: towards an evaluation framework. Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers, Department of Technology Management and Economics, Gothenburg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams-Bell, F.M., et al.: Using serious games and virtual simulation for training in the fire service: a review. Fire Technol. 51(3), 553–584 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Toftedahl, M., et al.: Pedagogiska IT-verktyg för Ledningsträning (in Swedish, Eng.: Pedagogical IT tools for Training for Management). Report at University of Skövde, Gothia Science Park (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heldal, I., Pareto, L., Wijkmark, C.H.: Simulation and serious games for firefighter training: obstacles and challenges for effective use in collaboration and decision making in crisis situations. In: Workshop at ACM CSCW, San-Francisco, USA (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adner, R., Snow, D.C.: ‘Old’ technology responses to ‘New’ technology threats: demand heterogeneity and graceful technology retreats. Ind. Corp. Change 19(5), 1655–1675 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heldal, I.: Simulation and serious games in emergency management: experiences from two case studies. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM), Kuala Lumpur, Maleysia. IEEE Press (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jansen, R.: Determining the cost savings for the participants in a joint inter-terminal transport system at the port of rotterdam. J. Supply Chain Manag. 74 (2014). Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamb, S., Kwok, K.C.S., Walton, D.: A longitudinal field study of the effects of wind-induced building motion on occupant wellbeing and work performance. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 133, 39–51 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mumma, A.: Why are we playing computer games? The practice of the Estonian Academy of Security Sciences (EASS). In: Pres. at the Nat. RAKEL Seminar (MSB) (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alklind Taylor, A.-S.: Facilitation matters: a framework for instructor-led serious gaming. Ph.D. thesis at the University of Skövde, School of Informatics (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Girard, C., Ecalle, J., Magnan, A.: Serious games as new educational tools: how effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 29(3), 207–219 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lamb, J.K., et al.: Incident command training: the introspect model. Int. J. Emerg. Serv. 3(2), 131–143 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schaafstal, A.M., Johnston, J.H., Oser, R.L.: Training teams for emergency management. Comput. Hum. Behav. 17(5–6), 615–626 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frank, A.: Gamer mode - identifying and managing unwanted behaviour in military educational wargaming. Ph.D. thesis at Stockholm, KTH, Department of Military Educational (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis Jr., F.D.: A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Ph.D. thesis at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1986)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heldal, I., Wijkmark, C.H.: Facilitators and obstacles in the introduction and use of technology: simulation and serious games as support in firefighter training. In: 9th International Conference on Researching Work and Learning, Proceedings of the International Conference of Researching Work and Learning (RWL9), Singapore (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Suneson, K., Heldal, I.: Knowledge barriers in launching new telecommunications for public safety. In: International Conference of Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management (ICICKM), Hong-Kong, pp. 429–439 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fencott, C., et al.: Game Invaders: The Theory and Understanding of Computer Games. Wiley, Hoboken (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Norway University of Applied SciencesBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations