=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2359/paper23
|storemode=property
|title=“Save the Water” – A China water management game project
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2359/paper23.pdf
|volume=Vol-2359
|authors=Mela Kocher,Anna Lisa Martin-Niedecken,Yu Li,Wolfgang Kinzelbach,Haijing Wang,René Bauer,Livio Lunin
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/KocherMLKWBL19
}}
==“Save the Water” – A China water management game project==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2359/paper23.pdf
“Save the Water” – A China water management game
project
Mela Kocher1, Anna Lisa Martin-Niedecken1, Yu Li2, Wolfgang Kinzelbach2, Haijing
Wang3, René Bauer1, Livio Lunin1
1 Zurich University of the Arts, Subject Area in Game Design, Switzerland
2 ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, Switzerland
3 hydrosolutions Ltd., Switzerland
mela.kocher@zhdk.ch
Abstract. Sustainable water resources management is a challenge world-
wide. The aquifer system of the North China Plain is a severe example.
Population growth, intensification of agriculture, and modified water
availability due to climate change have led to over-abstraction of
groundwater, with consequences such as soil subsidence, increase of
pumping costs and sea water intrusion. Since 2014, researchers of the
Institute of Environmental Engineering of the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (ETH Zurich) and hydrosolutions Ltd. have been working
together in a comprehensive project on the threat of groundwater
depletion due to the extensive aquifer tapping for farmland irrigation in
Guantao, prefecture of Handan, China. Their work focused on creating a
monitoring system for groundwater levels and pumped volumes using
electricity consumption as a proxy. Also, for understanding better the
farmers’ behavior, especially their reactions to different government
policies concerning the decrease of groundwater consumption, a very
simple version of a simulation game has been created. In order to better
represent the complexity of the real situation and to professionalize the
game design, the Subject Area in Game Design (ZHdK) joined the team.
This contribution addresses the design challenges, solutions and users’
testing results of the last two years of developing the serious games series
“Save the Water” for this project, including two board game versions and
a digital browser game.
Keywords: Serious Games, Applied Games, Game Design, Groundwater
Management, Overpumping, North China Plain.
1 Introduction
In arid and semi-arid regions, reliable agricultural production is only feasible with
irrigation. Groundwater as the only water resource, which is available all year round,
has become more and more attractive to agricultural water users to guarantee reliable
yield in agriculture. Severe over-pumping of aquifers has been common. It is estimated
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 265
that about one quarter of the 1000 cubic kilometers pumped annually from aquifers
worldwide is unsustainable use which causes depletion of aquifers [1].
Aquifers can store water over years and are therefore particularly suited for
mitigation of drought periods, which are expected to occur more frequently under
climate change. To serve this purpose they must however be allowed to recover in times
of above-average rainfall. Only under strict management, aquifers will be able to relieve
droughts reliably.
While a release of irrigation water from a surface reservoir is easily controlled,
extraction of groundwater can neither be easily monitored nor effectively controlled by
local water authorities due to the presence of a large number of wells. The difficulty
posed by managing them is the major reason why many aquifers in arid climate regions
are over-pumped. New technology shall support tackling the challenge of bringing
these aquifers back to a sustainable extraction mode.
In the past 30 years the aquifers in the semi-arid North China plain have been
severely over-exploited. In some places water tables dropped at a speed of two meters
per year. The natural flow system, in which water is recharged from the mountains and
in the plain and discharged towards the sea, has been reversed in both the lower and the
shallow aquifer layers due to the formation of deep cones of depression in heavily
exploited areas [2].
The over-exploitation is primarily a consequence of the intensification of agriculture
to feed a growing population. While the natural precipitation in the North China plain
is sufficient to support one grain crop per year under average rainfall conditions, the
double cropping of mainly winter wheat and maize can only be sustained by the
depletion of groundwater resources.
The vulnerability of China to the impacts of climate change and inter-annual climate
variability is high. Together with rapid economic and population growth and
urbanization, long-term climatic trends have strained China’s water resources to an
extent that all major river basins in the North and North-West are suffering from water
shortage. The country’s water supply and agricultural production is threatened by
changing spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation connected with more
frequent weather extremes such as prolonged droughts, heat waves and floods. The
over-pumping decreases the amount of water stored in the aquifers and thus the ability
of aquifers to serve as reservoirs for mitigating climate extremes.
The growing complexity and interdependence of water management processes
requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders. Interdisciplinary collaboration is
increasingly vital for strategy development and implementation. There is a need for
specifically developed tools, which could facilitate or enhance these collaborations
between stakeholders.
The solution to groundwater over-pumping requires behavioral change of the
irrigating farmers. Therefore, creating and increasing the awareness of rural population
regarding to the problem is critical. The playful education via an interesting game seems
to be a promising alternative to traditional appeals by posters and similar media [e.g.
3]. By reviewing well-established related research and development (R&D) work on
games and game research for water resource management, we identify three main
strategies approaching the respective game design: Following the digital approach, we
could identify rather simulative or tabular-like [e.g. 4, 5] applications, while other
playful approaches such as role-playing games are applied in analogue workshops [e.g.
6] or solely serving as research tool [e.g. 7].
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 266
However, there are no applications featuring a proper game design including state
of the art game mechanics, graphics and narration in the analogue and digital approach
although this is the most attractive way to raise awareness, to motivate people to learn
about serious topics and ideally change their behavior.
Furthermore, the cultural contexts in existing applications range from India, to Mexico,
to USA. So far and to the best of our knowledge, there are no state of the art game
design-based applications, which focus on the Chinese water management culture.
To contribute to this topic, we present the R&D project “Save the Water” which is
the result of a collaboration between the Institute of Environmental Engineering of the
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), the Subject Area in Game Design
and the Game Lab of the Zurich University of the Arts (ZHdK), hydrosolutions Ltd.,
Zurich and the Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China.
The multi-year project is supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation, the Ministry of Water Resources in China and the Chinese Academy of
Sciences.
Since 2014, researchers of the Institute of Environmental Engineering of the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich) and hydrosolutions Ltd. have been
working together in a comprehensive project on the threat of groundwater depletion
due to excessive farmland irrigation in Guantao County, prefecture of Handan. Their
work focused on creating a monitoring system for groundwater levels and pumped
volumes using electricity consumption as a proxy [8]. Also, for better understanding
the farmers’ behavior, especially their reactions to different government policies
concerning the decrease of groundwater consumption, Dr. Pan He (now South-West
University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China) worked with a very simple
version of a simulation game analogous to the ones described in [2]. In order to better
represent the complexity of the real situation and to professionalize the game design,
the Subject Area in Game Design (ZHdK) joined the team. The teams of ETH and
hydrosolutions Ltd. (consisting of Swiss and Chinese experts) provided the quantitative
hydrological and agronomical framework, having studied and interacted with the
groundwater management system on the ground in China for many years. In a joint
effort they first developed two versions of a board game in 2017, then, in 2018/19, a
digital game [9] to fulfill different tasks in this research project. These tasks include the
awareness building of rural population about the risk of groundwater depletion, and the
evaluation of farmers’ risk attitudes and preferences.
In this paper, we present the interdisciplinary, research-based and iterative design
process of a serious game for water management of Chinese farmers.
First, we introduce the “Save the Water” board game and the results of a test we
conducted with water management experts and Chinese farmers who played the
prototype, and elaborate on how participants’ feedback informed the redesign of the
board game. In addition, we present the further design of a digital game prototype and
provide an outlook on our future R&D work.
2 “Save the Water” – A Water Management Game Project
2.1 The Board Game (Complex Version)
User-centered Design Process. To meet the challenge of developing applied games
remotely for a different cultural context [10], an iterative, user-centered design process
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 267
served best to shape the usability of the game. Starting in early 2017, the board game
(Fig. 1) was developed at the Zurich University of the Arts, accompanied by numerous
meetings and smaller play testings with ETH staff and ZHdK game design students.
Since the game’s purpose was to simulate the cropping practice in Guantao County
and to raise the awareness for the growing risk of groundwater depletion, one of the
main design foci lies on how the common groundwater resource should be displayed,
in order to visualize responsibility and consequences of the player’s actions, and to
signal a dangerously low stage of the aquifer. Also, it was investigated what the game
mechanics would have to look like, so that the game would be fun to play, while still
reflecting the scientific facts.
Fig. 1. First board game version.
Game Mechanics. To respond to the basic conflict, which is underlying the serious
game, the board game’s story puts the participant in the role of a Chinese farmer who
struggles with the challenges posed by the need for profitable cropping under the issue
of groundwater depletion. Even though there is an instruction manual/rule book, the
game is guided by a game master, since the game is developed for a workshop-like
setting for farmers, students and water resource managers (administrative cadres).
There are two goals for each player, a common and an individual goal. The collective
goal of all players is not to deplete the aquifer, while the individual goal of each player
is to have more points/money than the other players at the end of the 4 rounds (e.g.
cropping years). Therefore, the game is over and everyone loses the moment the aquifer
is depleted by any one player. If the groundwater stays above the red line, the player
who earns the largest amount of points/money wins.
The game material (see also Fig. 2) consists of the central groundwater pool and a
circle which shows nine different agricultural phases of the farmer within a year:
Weather forecast, seeding/buying, actual weather conditions, irrigation, harvest,
upkeep, council meeting, events and entering into a new year. The game is made for 4
players, each having a character card, a land card (one at the beginning, several during
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 268
the game course), water chips and coins. In the game, the players in turn can take actions
phase by phase over the year: Based on the initial weather forecast (phase 1), they
decide in phase 2 whether to rent more land, what kind of crop seeds (single/double
crop or vegetables) or extensions to buy – extensions being a large water pump, water
tank or insurance, which are shown on the character card. When in phase 3 the actual
weather/rain conditions are clear, the groundwater pool card is “recharged” with blue
tokens which represent water units (as the groundwater declines, the color of those
water tokens changes from blue to yellow, then orange and, at the end, red). In the
fourth phase (irrigation), the players take those water units and place them on their field
cards, the amount of units depending on their choice of crops (single cropping of maize,
double cropping of winter wheat and summer maize, or vegetables). For example,
double cropping needs more water than single cropping; in deficit irrigation mode one
less water drop is given. Water saving equipment can save another drop; the greenhouse
vegetables need more water than grain fields, but can be (depending on the market
price) much more profitable.
During each “pumping” phase, the player rolls two 3-sided dice to determine
possible negative pumping effects (when still in the blue phase, less negative events
happen than when the groundwater pool is low). Such negative effects impact all
players, reflecting the common pool property of the groundwater resource; they can be
“illegal pumping” (as a consequence, one additional water unit has to be removed from
the pool), or occurrence of “salt water” (as a consequence, the harvest of each player
gets reduced by one silver coin for every field he/she owns) or further negative
consequences.
In phase 5, harvest, every player earns coins depending on the crop and the water
units applied in irrigation. In phase 6, upkeep, every player pays his/her upkeep. The
total upkeep cost is calculated by adding up the upkeep costs of all fields and all
extensions.
In phase 7, the “council meeting” is held. Together the players discuss the last and
the coming year. They can talk about a common strategy (e.g. concerning which crops
to buy) or decide upon a water pumping policy: The players can choose one of the
predefined policies or create a custom one for the next year; but all players need to
agree on a policy unanimously to put it into force.
In phase 8 (events), in turn every player draws a card and reads it in private. If the
bottom of the card indicates an instant effect, the card is played immediately. Otherwise
the player can keep the card covered and can play it whenever he/she decides to. Such
events can be positive (e.g. grants or state subsidies), or negative, such as agricultural
pests, social taxes, unexpected draughts etc. Then, in the last phase, the game master
advances the game to the next year.
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 269
Fig. 2. Game material: the nine game phases for the game overview (top left), a player’s field
card (top right), the common groundwater pool (bottom left) and the four character cards (bottom
right).
3 User Testing
To gain insights regarding the overall game experience, the cooperative playability
and the mediation effect of the underlying message of the board game, we conducted
several play testings with the first “Save the Water” prototype. The testings took place
in Guantao, China (Fig. 3).
3.1 Questionnaire Evaluation
Procedure. First, we playtested the original board game with N=12 Chinese experts
(m=7, w=5), aged 27 to 51 years (M=37.1; SD=7.57) from the field of water
management (engineers or managers). Participants played the game in 3 groups of 4
players each and were instructed about the general rules and game mechanics by a game
master, who joined and moderated the game session. After the game session,
participants were asked to complete a short survey with questions about their exact
professional background, individual gaming preferences, overall game experience,
most and least favorite experience with the board game, game functionality and
understandability, their individual goal (single versus multiplayer) and the perceived
meaningfulness of the game. Some questions were ranked with a 5-point Likert scale,
while others allowed for shorthand descriptions and keywords.
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 270
Fig. 3. Play testings with Chinese water management experts (left) and farmers (right).
Results. We found that most of the experts enjoyed playing the game a lot.
Regarding game complexity, most testers reported that the game was not too complex
at all (M=3.42; SD=0.90). The majority of participants understood the gameplay after the
first round (first game “year”). Most participants wanted to play the game again
(M=3.60; SD=0.72) although play duration was rather experienced as too long (M=3.3;
SD=0.65). Most testers felt that they enjoyed playing rather in a cooperative way
(serving the group goal), while only some reported that they preferred playing rather
competitively (for their individual goal) (M=3.50; SD=0.80).
When asked what they liked the most about the tested board game, participants
reported different things: The most frequently mentioned favorite experiences were
group dynamics among the players during the play session (e.g. “discussion about crop
choice and how to use water“ or „the group decides that every field can be irrigate by
two units of water only”), followed by specific game mechanics (e.g. “the decrease of
the bad events as the groundwater level increases”) and specific in-game events (e.g.
“groundwater drawdown”).
When asked what they liked least about the game, participants mentioned some game
rule-related problems (e.g. “it is not clear at which stage the player should buy the field
extension” or “it is not clear if the player can still buy the land after the real weather is
revealed”) or play strategy-related topics (e.g. “The play strategy doesn’t change too
much with respect to the changing water depth.”).
Furthermore, we asked participants to choose a statement which was applicable for
their experienced meaningfulness of the game. The majority found the statement “This
game could stimulate reflections and discussion about the topic of water use.” Some
participants further remarked “This game could stimulate a group process / the way we
discuss this topic with our colleagues.”
Finally, participants could make additional comments and provide further feedback.
Among other things, participants recommended to implement rewards for the winner,
serious punishments for causing a critical water level in the game, as well as mechanics
like other facilities to increase the water availability, free planting, fruit trees and water
transfer from other places.
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 271
3.2 Participatory Observation and Expert Interviews
Procedure. Secondly, we tested the game with N= 24 Chinese farmers (age 40-60
years, m=12, w=12). Other than with the water management experts, feedback of the
farmers has not been received by means of written questionnaires, since many of the
farmers have a low formal education level. Therefore, play testing results were obtained
by observation during the play sessions and by discussions/questions after the games,
guided by the team members (ETH/ZHdK/hydrosolutions). Those play testings also
took place in April 2017 in Guantao.
Results. It turned out, that for the target group of the Chinese farmers, the game was
too complex, and it took too long to play. The rules were too complicated, there was
too much text and there were too many features for the farmers to understand the game
in a reasonable time, even less for them to feel motivated to discuss water management
strategies. It proved to be valuable and necessary to have a Chinese speaking game
master or facilitator who introduced the game and explained the rules properly.
Nevertheless, there was a strong demand for a redesign of the board game.
3.3 Redesign: Complex and simple board game versions
Redesign. To meet the observations and results from play testings, the game
designers and researchers developed an additional simple version of the complex board
game (Fig. 4): In the biggest change, the character cards were abandoned completely,
therefore eliminating special add-ons such as extensions, insurances etc. This way,
there was less text, and about half of the possibilities to make decisions disappeared,
cutting the game time in half to one hour. The main game mechanic of the agricultural
phase loop played for four years remained. Also three of the original five policy cards
were kept in order to stimulate discussions among the players, covering the topics of
rationing, water rights and regulation.
Fig. 4. Simplified board game version after redesign process
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 272
Fig. 5. New character cards for complex board game version after redesign process
Overall – by means of oral feedback from discussions with water management
experts, students and farmers alike – there was a preference of a different visual style
(Fig. 5), as far as the character cards of the complex card game were concerned. The
original “socialist-realism” art style of the character cards was changed into a more
photorealistic style.
4 The Digital Game
Aim. After the board game design and redesign phases, the development of the
digital water management game started in 2018. In the second (and current) main
project phase the development of the digital adaptation of “Save the Water” was and is
taking place [11]. The aim of the digital version is to collect data about the farmers’
decision making more conveniently – the on-site board game sessions/workshops
served their purpose well with respect to stimulating discussion and communicating the
community background of the groundwater issue. But also, it proved to be an expensive
and elaborate method, which consequently should be supplemented by a browser game
as different research tool. Since smart phones are widely spread among the targeted
players (farmers, agricultural students), the digital game version can reach them more
broadly than a workshop-mediated game experience. Also, as will explained below,
through the administrative panel, the game variables (cost and income per crop, points
needed for level upgrade etc.) can be adjusted, and quantitative data on player behavior
data can be gathered in a digital form.
Game Mechanics. Basically, the browser-based simulation game [12] shares a
similarity in game mechanics with the board game, since it is also based on the intra-
annual agricultural phases. The goal for the player is to keep and expand his farm during
as many years as possible, and accumulate as much money as possible while preventing
the depletion of the groundwater.
In contrast to the board games, the digital game is a single player game, due to
technical reasons (much easier to program), but also because in this way more people
can be reached for playing asynchronously and more statistics can be gathered in the
online survey at the end, while the board game always needs four players to play
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 273
simultaneously and be interviewed on-site. In the single player digital version, it was
consequently harder to convey awareness to the factor that the groundwater resource is
a common good with shared responsibility. Features to communicate this have been
developed, e.g. system messages (Fig. 6) or narrative comments in the game (where the
player hears about other farmers who have irrigated very responsibly or, to the contrary,
have over-used water quota, see Fig. 7). Also, a global leaderboard is being
implemented, for the players to compare their game results world-wide with others and
get a multiplayer or community feeling in an alternative way.
In addition, there is an enhanced policy layer being implemented. The digital game
already has an administration panel, where the game master can choose parameters for
a certain game session (number of game years, crop prices, weather tendencies etc.).
Now the game master can also attach a specific policy to a game session, such as
restraints (e.g. only single cropping allowed), rewards or punishments for over-using
the resource. The tracking of the reactions of the players in response to certain policies
and the resulting behavioral data should, at some point, inform the water administration
officials in formulating effective policies (subventions, restrictions) in real life.
Fig. 6. In-game system message in the digital game
Fig. 7. Simulation of community feeling in the digital game
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 274
5 Discussion
The main goals of the “Save the Water” game project are to raise awareness for
sustainable groundwater use, and to test management policies and the according
behavioral attributes of the Chinese farmers in Guantao County. It should sensitize the
farmers for the threat of groundwater depletion, spread and gather knowledge, and start
a discourse. These are challenging tasks, since groundwater is per se invisible, and as
long as water can be pumped to irrigate fields, the danger of depletion is not explicit (it
can be understood only indirectly, when farmers have to deepen wells to reach the
groundwater table). Furthermore, the games should also function as a research tool for
ongoing ecological and socio-economic research, and yield, especially for the digital
game, data about decision-making in response to various water use and cropping
policies. The dual path of analogue and digital serious games applied in the same R&D
project is a unique strategy for groundwater projects; and its design documentation and
analysis was the main focus of this contribution.
By the iterative design process and by developing heterogenous analogue and digital
games, the “Save the Water”-game series is working well towards those aims, which
has been shown through the questionnaires, the participatory observations and informal
discussions with the participants. Especially the board game instigates discussions
about irrigation and cropping strategies. Dynamics unfold when players are torn
between individual economic goals (to make money) and the collective ecological goal
(to use water sustainably for irrigation).
The digital game is more casual; there the awareness-transfer cannot be observed
directly, even though this game version is closer to reality than the board game: While
crops prices and water units, weather consequences and other parameters have to be
simple integer numbers in the board game to allow convenient payments with tokens
and simple addition in-game by the players themselves, the overall data can be much
more detailed in the digital game. Its scientific strength therefore lies in the data mining
possibility: In the next part of the research project, analysts will be able to see when
exactly players change their behavior, e.g. switch from double to single cropping, or
when they start using sprinklers etc.. The data interpretation of the current digital game
shall yield further results so that the serious games will hopefully further support the
scientific, multi-year project of the Institute of Environmental Engineering of the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology and hydrosolutions.
6 Outlook
What will happen with these serious games in the future? For the digital game, there
will continuously be a public online version with stable parameters [8]. Parallel to that,
the administration panel allows different game masters to customize game sessions, e.g.
for specific groups or class rooms, and is accessible only per link (which allows the
mapping of the retrieved data onto the respective game adjustment, with own
parameters and policies). Target groups for this will be farmers, agronomy students and
water management experts alike.
The simplified board game shall be used for workshops for farmers conducted by
Chinese agricultural college graduates. As village officers, they can hopefully use the
game during their field work with farmers, and spread the message about sustainable
groundwater use.
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 275
The complex board game is being custom-produced in a limited number, in order to
serve as communication and promotion tool for the ETH project partners. For both the
simplified and the complex board game version PDF-files are available for the public
containing all game materials.
In March 2019, in collaboration with a team from Beijing University a farmers'
survey will be conducted. In this survey, traditional questionnaires will be used in
combination with the digital game to collect farmers’ responses to different
groundwater policies.
In addition, the results from the digital game play will be analyzed for extracting the
behavioral rules of farmers, which will be used to develop an agent based model in a
coupled human-nature system for understanding the development of the groundwater
system in Guantao taking into account the farmers' decision-making process.
References
1. Wada, Y., L. P. H. van Beek, and M. F. P. Bierkens (2012), Nonsustainable groundwater
sustaining irrigation: A global assessment, Water Resour. Res., 48, W00L06,
doi:10.1029/2011WR010562.
2. Cao G., Zheng C., Scanlon B. R., Liu J., Li W., (2013). Use of flow modeling to assess
sustainability of groundwater resources in the North China Plain, Water Resour. Res., 49,
159–175.
3. Magnuszewski, Piotr, et al. “Exploring the Role of Relational Practices in Water
Governance Using a Game-Based Approach.“ Water 10.3 (2018): 346.
4. Seibert, Jan, and M. J. P. Vis. “Irrigania – a web-based game about sharing water
resources.“ Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 16.8 (2012): 2523-2530.
5. Henderson, James L., & Lord, William B. (1995). A gaming evaluation of Colorado river
drought management institutional options. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 31(5), 907-924.
6. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, Chaturvedi, Rahul, Domènech, Laia, Ghate, Rucha, Janssen, Marco
A., Rollins, Nathan D., & Sandeep, K (2016). Games for groundwater governance: field
experiments in Andhra Pradesh, India. Ecology and Society, 21(3).
7. Du Bois, Rodrigo Salcedo (2014). Groundwater games: Users' behavior in common-pool
resource economic laboratory and field experiments. The Pennsylvania State University.
8. Cardenas, J.C., Janssen, M., and Bousquet, F. (2013). “Dynamics of rules and resources:
three new field experiments on water, forests and fisheries.” Handbook on experimental
economics and the environment: 319-345.
9. Mela Kocher, Livio Lunin, Wolfgang Kinzelbach, René Bauer, Yu Li, Haijing Wang, and
Anna Lisa Martin-Niedecken (2018). Save the Water! Serious Game for Water Management
in Chinese Farmers. In Proceedings of 3rd Gamification and Serious Games Symposium
(GSGS'18).
10. Kinzelbach, Wolfgang, Li, Yu, Martin-Niedecken, Anna, Bauer, René, Lunin, Livio,
Kocher, Mela, Wang, Haijing. “Developing a board game for chinese farmers”. Presentation
at: European Geosciences Union. General Assembly 2018. Vienna, Austria, 8–13 April
2018.
11. Kocher, Mela (2018), Game Mechanics of Serious Urban Games. Designing for the Ludic
City. In: Beat Suter, Mela Kocher and René Bauer (eds.), Games and Rules. Game
Mechanics for the “Magic Circle”. Bielefeld, transcript.
12. Save the Water – A Game about Groundwater Depletion: https://savethewater-game.com,
and https://gamedesign.zhdk.ch/forschung/serious-games/china-groundwater-management-
project/.
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, April 8-10, 2019 276