=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3147/paper14
|storemode=property
|title=Gamified apps for sustainable consumption: A systematic review
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3147/paper14.pdf
|volume=Vol-3147
|authors=Georgina Guillén M.,Daniel Fernández Galeote,Nevena Sicevic,Juho Hamari,Jaco Quist
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/GuillenGSHQ22
}}
==Gamified apps for sustainable consumption: A systematic review==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3147/paper14.pdf
Gamified apps for sustainable consumption: A systematic review
Georgina Guillén M.1, Daniel Fernández Galeote1, Nevena Sicevic1, Juho Hamari1, Jaco Quist2
1
Tampere University, Kalevantie 4, 33100 Tampere, Finland
2
TU Delft, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands
Abstract
Mobile apps are ubiquitous, affecting our everyday practices because “there is always an app
for that”. In this vein, there have been a significant number of apps devised to support people’s
lifestyles to make them more sustainable. This study aims to draw an overview of gamified
mobile apps for sustainable consumption. Following a systematic process, this study analyzes
67 gamified apps’ sustainability approaches and gamification concepts. It was found that (1)
sustainable consumption is generally presented as the efficient use of resources to impact the
environment positively, rarely addressing societal impacts or economic gains from shifting
consumption practices. Other findings include (2) a lack of diversity in gamification
characteristics, given the prevalence of direct communication with the user, the absence of
virtual identities, and most apps targeting behavior change without attitude change. A
potentially problematic design choice is (3) the presence, in some cases, of external rewards
that are often contradictory to the message of sustainable consumption as they lead to more
consumption. Nonetheless, based on most apps embedding sustainable consumption activities
in the gamification concept and having a large number of users, it is possible to conclude that
gamification has the potential to motivate shifts in their users’ lifestyles.
Keywords 1
Mobile apps, sustainable consumption, gamification, review
1. Introduction including, e.g., the use of games for learning [8].
Despite the increasing corpus of studies about
gamification as enablers of new habits across
Nowadays, it seems there is “an app for
different lifestyle areas [9], there is little evidence
everything” and sustainable living is not an
on what kind of gamification concepts, or the
exception. As research addressing how apps can
design choices adopted to provide game-like
lead to forming new habits grows [1, 2] most of
experiences and utilitarian outcomes [10], are
the findings concur on the importance of
used in the broader area of apps for sustainable
contextual cues and design elements that make the
consumption (SC), and for what purpose.
app interactive and more engaging, covering a
Therefore, practitioners and researchers may lack
wide range of areas that touch upon sustainable
a clear perspective on what sustainable lifestyle
lifestyles [3]. Regardless of their potential
areas to target and how, and what the current offer
environmental or social impact [4], a way these
is for users seeking to live more sustainably. This
apps can motivate users to act towards more
study aims at answering the following:
sustainable ways of living is through gamification
RQ1. “How do gamified mobile apps present
[3, 5, 6, 7], understood as the transformation of a
sustainable consumption and related actions to
system to provide game-like experiences and
motivate lifestyle practices?”
facilitate behavioral or cognitive changes,
6th International GamiFIN Conference 2022 (GamiFIN 2022),
April 26-29, 2022, Finland
EMAIL: georgina.guillen@tuni.fi (G.Guillén);
daniel.fernandezgaleote@tuni.fi (D.Fernández):
nevena.sicevic@tuni.fi (N.Sicevic); juho.hamari@tuni.fi (J.Hamari);
j.n.quist@tudelft.nl (J.Quist).
ORCID: 0000-0002-2462-0082 (G.Guillén);
0000-0002-5197-146X (D.Fernández); 0000-0002-0579-8977 (N. Sicevic);
0000-0002-6571-588X (J.Hamari); 0000-0002-6365-4082 (J.Quist).
©️ 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
135
RQ2. “What are the gamification enable gamified sustainable consumption [7, 13,
characteristics used in these solutions?” 14]. They also tend to be the ones with shorter
An overview of current gamification for SC is lives and to only address environmental issues [7].
a novel addition to this research field, as we Research on gamification approaches to
review the state of the art and provide a reasoned motivate sustainable consumption (SC) highlights
critique of some of the problems intrinsic to that designers tend to focus on the behavioral-
existing trends, such as a focus on efficiency as a motivational and functional aspects [17, 23],
prevalent approach to sustainability and the use of while research on SC brings about challenges
physical rewards. Researchers and developers can such as the long-term maintenance of everyday
benefit from this analysis of pre-existing attempts practices (turned into habits) and increases in
to learn and avoid repetition. Additionally, this resource consumption [6, 7]. This study considers
study’s analytical framework can be used to gamification and SC within the context of
facilitate app co-creation between SC experts and lifestyles and apps that help guide consumption
gamification practitioners. This paper first practices with the following core concepts:
presents the study’s theoretical background i) Sustainable lifestyles, i.e., a “cluster of
(Section 2), followed by the research method and habits and patterns of behavior [...] that frame
app analysis process (Section 3). Section 4 individual choice, in order to minimize the use of
outlines several findings answering the research natural resources and generation of wastes, while
questions, which are discussed in Section 5. supporting fairness and prosperity for all” [24, p.
Section 6 summarizes the conclusions. 3]. Sustainable consumption behavior are
individual choices that satisfy needs through three
2. Theoretical background consumption stages: acquisition, use, and disposal
of goods and services, without compromising the
ecological and socioeconomic conditions of
“In an increasingly hyperconnected world,
people today and in the future [25]. The disposal
sustainability smartphone apps have the potential stage includes activities such as exchanging,
to increase the feedback from distant consumers recycling and bartering, often using circularity
around the globe on the stewardship of natural strategies that prevent goods from ending up in
resources” [11, p. 390]. There is a need for novelty landfills. The lifestyle areas examined in this
and development of approaches to address study are based on [26] and refer to clothing,
ongoing global issues, and gamification can personal care, mobility, recreation, feeding and
support motivation and user engagement [8]. The living, with the latter including energy, waste, and
potential of mobile technology for sustainability water management.
aspects has been long recognized, focusing on ii) Approaches to sustainable consumption are
capabilities such as ubiquitous internet access and impact-focused and based on practices and
location tracking [12]. Recent reviews found apps behaviors, since “measurement scales have to
to favor educational and behavioral outcomes, concentrate on the ecologically and socially most
like mobilizing social influence and providing impactful behaviors” [25, p. 20]. The resulting
explicit and attainable goals [13]. Apps have been areas of expected impact are environment,
used in areas such as transportation, air quality, society, economy, personal wellbeing, sales, and
waste management and water conservation, and secondary impact. While the first three refer to
have brought positive outcomes in energy
general sustainability dimensions [25], the final
reduction [13, 14], although with less certain three represent a narrower impact on the
long-term effects [13]. There is also evidence of individual consumers of goods, their providers, or
positive, significant relationships between app
a cause, respectively. Figure 1 summarizes the
use, awareness of consequences and ascription of approaches to SC considered for the app analysis:
responsibility for “environmental citizen resource efficiency [27], degrowth [28, 29],
behaviors” [15]. Apps for pro-environmental mindfulness [30], collaborative schemes [31, 32]
behavior mentioned in existing literature include and sufficiency [33].
both single-player [16, 17] and community- iii) Gamification, defined as “an intentional
supported systems [18, 19]. Although most process of transforming any activity, system,
gamification and games for environmental topics
service, product, or organizational structure into
such as climate change, or domestic energy one which affords positive experiences, skills, and
consumption are not typically apps [14, 20, 21, practices similar to those afforded by games
22], these seem to be popular approaches to [commonly but optionally] with an intention to
136
facilitate changes in behaviors or cognitive 1. Search and select apps for practices of
processes” [8, p. 1]. While gamification can also sustainable consumption / lifestyle; and,
refer to the emergent process by which games and 2. Test and analyze the selected apps.
play are becoming more prevalent in human lives
[8], this analysis focuses on the intentional
gamification of SC through apps, acknowledging
that gamification for SC is co-evolving with
emergent gamification as part of ongoing societal
and cultural transformations.
Figure 1: Approaches to SC
iv) Gamification concepts for mobile apps, an 3.1. Online data collection and app
adaptation of a 12-dimension taxonomy [10] to
identify and understand how gamification is selection
designed and implemented in mobile apps. The
dimensions (and characteristics within) are: 1. As this study aims to provide a wider overview
gamification concept-to-user communication of apps for sustainable consumption, the search
(direct or mediated); 2. user identity (virtual keywords used the most common definitions of
character or self-selected), 3. rewards (internal, SC found in the literature of gamified SC [7] in a
internal and external, none), 4. competition string: (“sustainability” OR “sustainable
(direct, indirect, none), 5. target group, 6. consumption” OR “sustainable lifestyles” OR
collaboration (cooperative, supportive only, “green lifestyles” OR “green living”) AND (game
none), 7. goal setting (self-set, externally set), 8. OR gamification OR apps). In Google Play and
narrative (continuous, episodic), 9. reinforcement the App Store, the terms were “sustainability”,
(positive, positive-negative), 10. level of “sustainable consumption”, “sustainable
integration (independent, inherent), 11. lifestyles”, “sustainable lifestyle”, “green
persuasive intent (compliance, behavior, attitude), lifestyles”, “green lifestyle”, and “green living”.
and, 12. user advancement (presentation, These keywords encompass actions related to
progressive, none). [10] note that the taxonomy, different approaches to sustainable consumption,
originally created for health apps, is partially excluding more general terms like “wellbeing”,
transferrable to other contexts. Therefore, while it “inclusion”, “social” or “mindfulness” which
was chosen because it allowed us to focus on could return apps focusing on issues other than
larger dimensions than gamification elements, we consumption choices.
made several adaptations to the area of SC and our The online search for mobile apps took place
sample before and during the analysis. These on two dates: February and May 2021. The earlier
adjustments are explained in the next section. version contained websites that enlisted solutions
for sustainable lifestyles from which mobile apps
were extracted. The second search was focused
3. Methodology solely on apps and, in addition to Google,
included searches in the App Store and Google
This study collects descriptive data Play. Both databases were cross-referenced to
complemented with qualitative observations to remove duplicates and create a single database of
identify and analyze gamified apps for users apps labeled as enablers of sustainable
willing to shift their consumption practices. We consumption/lifestyles, ending with a total of
followed a systematic approach to: 1082 apps. Browser navigation was done in
137
private mode to minimize technology-side biases.
Google searches stopped when the displayed
entries in a page did not point to new potentially
relevant apps. The selection of apps was carried
out through three steps as shown in Figure 2.
Step 1. Removal of irrelevant apps based on
their intended purposes. Apps deemed irrelevant
were designed for events, fitness and diets (most
of them focused on health and not consumption),
local projects and businesses, store loyalty Figure 2: Selection process
programs, restaurants and recipes, employees and
suppliers of companies and organizations, camera
filters, fan groups, and TV shows. 3.2. Testing and analyzing the apps
Step 2. Removal of apps in languages other
than English, German, or Spanish (the languages To facilitate the systematic analysis of the
spoken by at least two of the researchers), apps apps, an analytical framework was developed.
that did not present any of the gamification Besides context-providing metrics (i.e., release
dimensions explored in the study, and apps that year, user downloads) the framework also brings
required payment to use their main functions together the lifestyle areas [26] expected impact
(premium or freemium content). To ascertain and consumption phases [25], the approaches to
these, the authors read the store descriptions and, SC, and the gamification dimensions for apps [10]
if necessary, downloaded the apps and used them introduced in Section 2. The proposed taxonomy,
to find if any of the gamification dimensions although created from health apps, refers to broad
(section 2.iv) featured in the app. gamification dimensions, and initial small-scale
Step 3. Three researchers analyzed the apps testing proved it to be applicable for SC apps.
that qualified for this round, each app being tested Before the analysis, we adapted the target
by two people. The results were then compared to group (consumers at the household level instead
agree on a unified result, and the third researcher of patients, health professionals, and healthy
was involved where disagreements arose. 35 apps individuals); then, during the analysis, other
were removed due to issues that ranged from no adjustments were made based on the data found.
longer being available online or being under This concerns types of narrative (we found some
development, glitches (not responsive past the apps that present both episodic and continuous
registration page, blank pages) and location elements, which was not the case in the original,
specific access. For the latter, it is important to and mutually exclusive, taxonomy); goal setting
differentiate between access to the app functions (some apps allow for self- and externally set
and the apps’ intended service. While we could goals); and persuasive intent (in our study, we
download and test the functions of some apps refined the definition of the three types of intent,
linked to specific locations by introducing a zip which are also non-exclusive. Compliance change
code or just browsing through its features, some is following an externally set rule for a determined
apps that passed through the filters in steps 1 and time, attitude change aims to nurture awareness,
2 did not work once downloaded. The analysis of and behavior change encourages to engage in
the apps took place with the researchers located in activities without suggesting strict rules).
Germany, Finland and Spain, so these apps were This framework (Figure 3) allowed us to
mainly outside of Europe. However, some screen the apps and develop a quantitative
location-bound apps such as [34, 35] allow the (descriptive) analysis; that, complemented with
users to see all their functions even if not being in qualitative observations, permitted us to
the country. In the end, a total of 67 apps [36] were understand how app developers portray SC and
tested and analyzed. what gamification concepts they build in their
efforts to shift every day’s consumption practices.
138
The apps marked as sales aim to sell products
through internal or external shops. The apps that
have a clear sales function present these online
shops as an alternative to acquire eco-friendly
(and sometimes socially responsible, fair-traded)
products to facilitate the transition to less
environmentally harmful items. A few apps
provide additional aims such as giving money to
charity or supporting reforestation projects.
As all lifestyle areas are connected to each
other, the analysis of apps shows very strong links
between some areas, denoting the perceived
problematic that lies within the most common
Figure 3: Analytical framework elements consumption practices. Waste management is the
most addressed one. Of the 88% of apps targeting
4. Results waste management aspects, 64% have a full life
cycle approach, meaning that they address all
The discussion rounds between the researchers three consumption stages. Disposal, or end of
crystallized into a final classification for each app. cycle, is the most common one. Apps propose
The results are clustered according to SC elements different approaches to manage waste, from
and gamification dimensions. Of the 67 apps [36] taking pictures and tagging maps of littered areas
analyzed, 55% were launched in 2019-2020. Also or facilitating waste separation to do-it-yourself
9% have more than 100,000 downloads on tips for upcycling or repurposing materials.
Google Play, making them quite popular. Just over half of the apps, feature personal
care, which covers practices that range from
beauty treatments to mental health and new habit
4.1. Sustainable consumption formation (i.e., [38, 39]). Table 1 is an overview
of the SC elements found in the apps.
The apps are classified in terms of their
suggested approach to sustainability (the Table 1
perceived philosophy promoted by the app). Sustainable consumption elements
Combinations are common, as less than a half of Approach Apps n (%)
the apps focused on a single approach. The most Resource efficiency 53 (79%)
popular is resource efficiency, while sufficiency Mindful consumption 33 (49%)
is barely featured. Collaborative schemes 23 (34%)
The apps’ area of impact is determined Degrowth (voluntary simplicity) 12 (18%)
according to their purpose, either described in the Sufficiency 7 (10%)
app or marketing material or observed from the Single approach 29 (43%)
actions proposed to users. All but two apps aim to All approaches 1 (1%)
have an environmental impact and include Area of expected impact Apps n (%)
statements such as “you stay on top of everything Environment 65 (97%)
you can do to lead a sustainable life and save the Society 26 (39%)
planet” [37]. The apps with a societal impact Economy 15 (22%)
Personal wellbeing 15 (22%)
focus on sustainable practices in the communities
Sales 11 (16%)
and the SDGs. None of the examined apps aim to
Secondary impact: charity/donation/planting 4 (6%)
impact society alone. Economy and personal
wellbeing are equally represented. Apps with an Single area of (primary) expected impact 30 (48%)
All areas of (primary) expected impact 1 (1%)
impact on personal wellbeing are those focused on
Lifestyle area Apps n (%)
bringing positive effects for the individual
consumer, i.e., [38] states “stay off your phone, Waste management 59 (88%)
Food 44 (66%)
clear to-do lists, and build positive, life-changing
Personal care 35 (52%)
habits”. Apps that consider economic impacts Mobility 34 (51%)
include statements regarding, for example, “the Energy 34 (51%)
impact the action has on your wallet and the Clothing 29 (43%)
environment” [39]. Recreation 27 (40%)
139
Water management 27 (40%) Level of integration Apps n (%)
Single lifestyle area 14 (21%) Independent 16 (24%)
All lifestyle areas 13 (19%) Inherent 52 (78%)
Consumption Stage Apps n (%) Persuasive intent Apps n (%)
Disposal 57 (85%) Compliance change 12 (18%)
Use 51 (76%) Behavior change 55 (82%)
Acquisition 49 (73%) Attitude change 27 (40%)
User advancement Apps n (%)
Single consumption stage 15 (22%)
Presentation only 36 (54%)
All consumption stages 38 (57%)
Progressive 22 (33%)
No 10 (15%)
4.2. Gamification dimensions
Specifically, [43] combines real
Table 2 presents an overview of the cryptocurrency mining with quizzes about
gamification dimensions and characteristics sustainability. Nearly all apps present user
within; as many apps feature multiple identity concept as self-selected, meaning that
characteristics for a single dimension, some users have a personal profile instead of a virtual
results add up to more than 100%. character different from themselves. In some
Most apps convey the information directly as cases, users do not even have a personal profile
text (direct communication) without the where they can state a name and simple
mediating layer of a fictional character. In two customization elements such as a picture. In three
cases [42, 43], users engage in actions with real- cases where users do have a virtual character
world impact. different from their own identity, they were
characters in a game. In another case, users have
Table 2 a username and a picture, and are also given a
Gamification dimensions virtual character (e.g., an avocado, a banana)
Concept-to-user communication Apps n (%) symbolizing their reported carbon footprint.
Direct 59 (88%)
Most apps offer only internal rewards (such as
Mediated 8 (12%) badges and points for use within the app itself),
User identity Apps n (%) while a minority also adds external rewards
Virtual character 4 (6%) (points and vouchers that can be used as discounts
Self-selected 63 (94%) on real-world purchases) or have none.
Rewards Apps n (%) While most apps include no competition
Internal 36 (54%) features, 30% include indirect competition by
Internal and external 17 (25%) comparing the user’s overall performance to
No 14 (21%) others’ through point systems and leaderboards.
Competition Apps n (%) When it comes to goal-setting, users of 72% of
Direct 1 (1%) the apps can set the goal they want to reach, either
Indirect 20 (30%) by choosing from a predefined list or setting them
No 47 (70%) individually; of these, five apps have both self-
Target group Apps n (%) selected and externally set goals. Meanwhile,
Individual consumer 67 (100%) 28% of the apps present externally set goals only.
Other 7 (10%)
Most apps include an episodic narrative, or
Collaboration Apps n (%)
clear stages that indicate partial progress, while
Cooperative 13 (19%)
half of the apps have a continuous narrative,
Supportive only 24 (36%)
meaning that the user advancement is not reset at
No 31 (46%)
any point and there are no stages. 19% presented
Goal setting Apps n (%)
both types of narrative, as the users can choose
Self-set 48 (72%)
Externally set 24 (36%)
whether they want to follow a specific type of
Narrative Apps n (%)
challenge to level up and start over when a new
Continuous 37 (55%)
challenge comes up, or keep engaging in activities
Episodical 43 (64%) for which they can see their progress with no
Reinforcement Apps n (%) differences in terms of difficulty or changes to
Positive 54 (81%) their scores, for example.
Positive-negative 13 (19%)
140
Most apps use positive reinforcement management. This, combined with the prevalence
(encouragement), while a minority, mostly full- of the disposal stage, suggests that consumers are
fledged games, uses both positive and negative routinely encouraged to consider the waste that
reinforcement, including penalties such as losing their choices generate, although acquisition and
a life or failing the mission. disposal are often addressed too.
The question “would the app still function in The predominant promise of “doing something
the same essential way, fulfilling its core goals, if good for the environment” suggests that
the gamification concepts were removed?” helped sustainability is still not understood as a holistic
to enable the separation between gamification as way of living, a notion emphasized by the strong
an addendum – independent – for (intended) orientation towards resource efficiency, an
increased engagement, though the app could approach that is not about changing lifestyles as
fulfill its objectives without being gamified; and much as improving existing ones to make them
apps where the content and actions could not be less damaging. This is dissimilar from previous
experienced without the gameful design – research on sustainability games, where most
inherent. Examples of the former include those were found to address multiple sustainability
that provide information and suggested tasks, or dimensions [44], but reinforces the observation
that reward isolated behaviors that can be done that gamified sustainability apps tend to have a
without an app (e.g., picking up litter, consuming strong environmental focus [7], rarely addressing
eco-friendly goods). Games (17 apps) are the most societal impacts or even economic gains from
obvious example of an experience where playful shifting consumption practices.
elements are intrinsic to the artifact, but this The variety of SC areas addressed suggest that
numerous group also includes apps that propose developers see the potential of mobile technology
challenges where progress, points, rewards, etc. and gamification [8, 11] although incremental and
are seamlessly integrated in the app’s discourse. often technology-oriented effort is a much more
The most common persuasive intent (type of popular approach than these that aim at reducing
change the gamification concept in apps for SC consumption (sufficiency) or radically
aims to evoke) among the analyzed apps is transforming it (simplicity). This is unsurprising,
behavior change, in some cases accompanied by considering the definition of the SDG 12 where
attitude change. consumers (at all levels and scales) play a pivotal
User advancement in the examined apps is role to shift wasteful production processes and
either presented to the user (via progress bars, lifestyles into practices of better resource
stats, charts, points, scores, ranking, levels, etc.), management and less harm to people and
found in over half of the apps, or it additionally ecosystems.
utilizes users’ progress to adapt the gamification Regarding gamification concepts, we observed
concept to their skills (e.g., climbing up through a lack of diversity in gamification strategies. The
levels and stages to reach more difficult or analyzed apps are quite homogeneous in various
challenging content), presented in a third. Of the aspects. While almost nine in ten convey
22 apps with progressive advancement, 9 are messages directly, avoiding balancing their
games. 10 apps do not provide mechanisms for credibility and the use of fictional narratives and
user advancement. contexts, gamification could look at the engaging
potential of fantasy [45], as traditional serious
5. Discussion games do, perhaps highlighting their connections
to the player’s reality and goals. This is also
connected to the fact that 94% of the apps do not
This study aims to identify how gamified
offer a virtual character separate from the real
mobile apps present SC, their expected area of user. More apps could explore the possibilities of
impact and gamification characteristics used to having a character to inspire the player in their
motivate SC practices. We summarized the quest towards a sustainable lifestyle.
general performance indicators from the apps and Another common aspect is the absence of
tested them to identify the lifestyle area they negative reinforcement (78%), that is, mentioning
focused on, the consumption stage addressed, failures or penalizing the user. While this is more
approach, their expected impacts, and
common in full-fledged games, the almost
gamification concepts. ubiquitous encouraging tone in gamified apps
Our findings suggest that most apps aim to may be due to underlying positive psychology
address several lifestyle areas, mainly waste theories such as self-determination theory [46]
141
and flow [47], which focus on aspects of human The conducted analysis provides various
experience such as enjoyment and self- contributions for designers and scholars.
actualization. However, the lack of specific Designers can benefit from knowing the state of
punishment does not negate the emergence of the art of this area to detect opportunities, as well
potentially negative experiences, for, in zero-sum as a contextualization of certain content choices
competitive arrangements such as leaderboards, it with implications in terms of sustainability and
is entirely possible to not win. user experience. Scholars interested in SC and
Most apps allow users to set their own goals, gamification can have a more nuanced
although not all offer the opportunity to track the understanding of the mechanics of gamified apps
user’s advancement. Self-set goals support the to consider whether these are appropriate for their
users’ autonomy, but the lack of guidance may efforts to reach out to consumers and
hinder the sustainability of the users’ effort. Also, communities. Given that researchers often create
only a third of the apps unlock content their own solutions, this analysis can help them
progressively, therefore most do not present avoid unsustainable repetition when their ideas
activities progressively based on the level of effort significantly overlap with existing designs.
required (from easy/simple to hard/complex). This study also contributes to the emerging
This may result in the user not seeing a clear path field of gamified SC literature, presenting a way
from smaller to bigger actions, although open to continue developing research on both fields as
designs allow players to select actions freely, a unified discipline. As part of our analysis, we
discarding what they already do. elaborated further on the taxonomy from [10],
We also found 17 apps that offer external adapting it to the context of household-level
rewards that contradict the message of sustainable consumers, addressing some ambiguities, and
consumption. In most cases, these promote further presenting examples of elements that could be
consumption and not necessarily from inclusive. The analytical framework developed
“sustainable” stores only. Some even advocate for for this study can be used to facilitate the
more purchases (i.e., [48]) with premises that can understanding of gamified sustainable
lead to attitudes such as “I am donating so I can consumption among researchers and practitioners,
keep buying since I have coupons to do so.” Many as it provides a blueprint that enables co-creation
of the apps excluded from the sample had a of apps that cover SC holistically in effective,
similar approach to rewards: offering coupons engaging, and resilient ways.
with discounts for all sorts of stores. Apart from We also acknowledge some limitations of this
potential implications regarding sustainability, study. First, the analysis focuses exclusively on
tangible rewards typically undermine intrinsic the apps’ content, rather than their actual use;
motivation, as do punishment threats or imposed although available user reviews were routinely
goals [49]. However, the perception of game read to gain a broader idea of the user experience,
elements is user-specific [50]. Few studies [17] this was not intended as part of the analysis.
address the perception of tangible rewards and Second, the frequent disappearance of apps,
possible interactions with motivation towards which even became unavailable between analysis
sustainable behavior in the context of SC. stages, makes this field a changing one. Third, the
Given our observations, future studies could study excluded apps about sustainable
survey app designers to ascertain whether their consumption/lifestyles that included external
choices, either leading to or deviating from the rewards (i.e., discounts and coupons) but were not
most typical elements observed here, result from gamified. Contrariwise, some of the apps that are
implementation costs, the existence of an assumed known to facilitate SC were not included because
success formula, or other reasons. All in all, a either they were not gamified or did not appear
positive observation is that only a minority of the with the search terms used. Fourth, including
apps use gamification superficially, given that additional keywords often associated with
four out of five apps integrated gamification sustainable lifestyles and social aspects (i.e.,
inherently. Thus, the gamified SC app space wellness, mindfulness) may have provided
seems to take advantage of the possibilities of additional relevant apps to analyze.
gamification, proposing courses of action that
apps without gamification could not easily 6. Conclusion
imitate. Future studies could examine different
forms of user advancement to see if they are
connected to, e.g., user satisfaction or retention.
142
The world of apps keeps morphing and [5] K. Gram-Hanssen, New needs for better
adapting to trends. This study shows the need for understanding of household’s energy
a more holistic understanding of SC and a more consumption - behaviour, lifestyle or
critical approach to certain gamification practices?, Architectural Engineering and
dimensions, such as rewards, that could Design Management, vol. 10, no. 1–2
undermine not only intrinsic motivation but also (2014) 91–107.
the very sustainability that the apps promote. [6] P. Fraternali et al., Visualizing and
Future research could investigate the effects gamifying consumption data for resource
of gamification design choices identified here, saving: challenges, lessons learnt and a
including both the most and the least common, research agenda for the future, Energy
i.e., the effects of different persuasive intents Informatics, vol. 2 (2019).
(compliance, attitude, and behavior change). The [7] G. Guillen, J. Hamari, J. Quist,
results of this study can be strengthened through Gamification of sustainable consumption:
interviews with app developers, cross-checking A systematic literature review, in: Proc.
their user data with user experience reports Annual HICSS, 2021, pp. 1345–1354.
collected through workshops or surveys, for [8] J. Hamari, Gamification, in: G. Ritzer, C.
example. Overall, given that four out of five of the Rojek (Eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia
apps integrate gamification inherently, we can of Sociology, John Wiley & Sons, New
conclude that most existing gamified apps in this York, NY, 2019.
space can support sustainable consumption. If [9] S. Trösterer, P. Mörtl, Motivating drivers
these practice shifts become habits that last, is still to drive energy efficient, in: A. Fuchs, B.
to be seen. Brandstätter (Eds.), Future interior
concepts, Springer, Cham, CH, 2021.
7. Acknowledgements [10] M. Schmidt-Kraepelin, S. Thiebes, M. C.
Tran, A. Sunyaev, What’s in the game?
Developing a taxonomy of gamification
This research was supported by the Fortum and concepts for health apps, in: Proc. 51st
Neste Foundation (agreement 20200029), the HICSS, 2018.
Nessling Foundation (Project 202100217) and the [11] T.P.L. Nghiem, L.R. Carrasco, Mobile
Academy of Finland Flagship Program 337653 - applications to link sustainable
Forest-Human-Machine Interplay (UNITE). consumption with impacts on the
environment and biodiversity, BioScience,
8. References vol. 66, no. 5 (2016) 384–392.
[12] J. S. Wu, J. J. Lee, Climate change games
[1] K. Stawarz, A. L. Cox, A. Blandford, as tools for education and engagement,
Beyond self-tracking and reminders: Nature Climate Change, vol. 5, no. 5
Designing smartphone apps that support (2015) 413–418.
habit formation, in: Conf. Human Factors [13] B. D. Douglas, M. Brauer, Gamification to
in Computing Systems – Proc., 2015, pp. prevent climate change: a review of games
2653–2662. and apps for sustainability, Current
[2] N. Kliemann, H. Croker, F. Johnson, R. J. Opinion in Psychology, vol. 42 (2021) 89–
Beeken, Development of the top tips habit- 94.
based weight loss app and preliminary [14] D. Johnson, E. Horton, R. Mulcahy, M.
indications of its usage, effectiveness, and Foth, Gamification and serious games
acceptability: Mixed-methods pilot study, within the domain of domestic energy
JMIR mHealth and uHealth, vol. 7, no. 5 consumption: A systematic review,
(2019). Renewable and Sustainable Energy
[3] J. Koivisto, J. Hamari, The rise of Reviews, vol. 73 (2017) 249–264.
motivational information systems: A [15] M. D’Arco, V. Marino, Environmental
review of gamification research, Int. J. Inf. citizenship behavior and sustainability
Manage., vol. 45 (2019) 191–210. apps: an empirical investigation,
[4] G. B. Choi et al., Effect of mobile apps on Transforming Government: People,
environmental impact of smartphones, vol. Process and Policy, vol. ahead-of-print,
9, no. 2 (2018) 137–144. no. ahead-of-print (2022).
143
[16] Y. R. Zou, N. Mustafa, N. A. Memon, M. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopme
Eid, ECO ECO: Changing climate related nt/sustainable-consumption-production/.
behaviors for cellphone-based [28] G. Kallis, F. Demaria, G. D’Alisa,
videogames, in: 2015 IEEE International Degrowth, in: G. D’Alisa, F. Demaria, and
Symposium on Haptic, Audio and Visual G. Kallis (Eds.), Degrowth: A vocabulary
Environments and Games, 2015. for a new era, Routledge, 2014.
[17] R. Mulcahy, R. Russell-Bennett, D. [29] D. Elgin, Voluntary simplicity: An
Iacobucci, Designing gamified apps for ecological lifestyle that promotes personal
sustainable consumption: A field study, J. and social renewal, Bantam Books, New
Bus. Res., vol. 106 (2020) 377–387. York, NY, 1982.
[18] B. Glogovac et al., Ducky: An online [30] S. Bahl et al., Mindfulness: Its
engagement platform for climate transformative potential for consumer,
communication, in: ACM International societal, and environmental well-being, J.
Conf. Proc. Series, 2016. Public Policy Mark., vol. 35, no. 2 (2016)
[19] J. J. Lee et al., GREENIFY: A real-world 198–210.
action game for climate change education, [31] R. Botsman, R. Rogers, What’s mine is
Simulation and Gaming, vol. 44, no. 2–3 yours: How collaborative consumption is
(2013) 349–365. changing the way we live, Collins,
[20] A. Gerber et al., Games on climate change: London, UK, 2011.
Identifying development potentials [32] M. Henry et al., The battle of the
through advanced classification and game buzzwords: A comparative review of the
characteristics mapping, Sustainability, circular economy and the sharing
vol. 13, no. 4, (2021) 1–26. economy concepts, Environmental
[21] D. Fernández Galeote et al., Gamification Innovation and Societal Transitions, vol.
for climate change engagement: review of 38 (2021) 1–21.
corpus and future agenda, Environmental [33] T. Princen, The logic of sufficiency, MIT
Research Letters, vol. 16, no. 6 (2021). Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005.
[22] D. Fernández Galeote, J. Hamari, Game- [34] Fill it Forward, Fill it Forward, 2016.
based climate change engagement: [35] SpiderInteractive BV, RVM Dubal Mall,
Analyzing the potential of entertainment 2019.
and serious games, in: Proc. ACM on [36] G. Guillen M., D. Fernandez Galeote, N.
Human-Computer Interaction, 2021, pp. Sicevic, J. Hamari, J. Quist, Gamified apps
1–21. for sustainable consumption: List of apps,
[23] J. I. Mendez et al., Empower saving energy 2022, https://osf.io/hvxdz.
into smart homes using a gamification [37] AppFinca Inc., Flora- Green Focus, 2017.
structure by social products, Lawrence [39] Joulebug, JouleBug, 2012.
Berkeley Nat. Lab., Berkeley, 2020. [40] Greener Group, Greener Act, 2019.
[24] L. Akenji, C. Huizhen, A framework for [42] Chillisalsa Limited, Ailuna-eco habits,
shaping sustainable lifestyles. 2020.
Determinants and strategies, UN [43] Giik, Glowb, 2019.
Environment Program, Nairobi, KE, 2016. [44] M. Stanitsas, K. Kirytopoulos, E.
[25] S. M. Geiger, D. Fischer, U. Schrader, Vareilles, Facilitating sustainability
Measuring what matters in sustainable transition through serious games: a
consumption: An integrative framework systematic literature review, J. Cleaner
for the selection of relevant behaviors, Production, vol. 208 (2019) 924–936.
Sustainable Development, vol. 26, no. 1 [45] R. Hunicke, M. Leblanc, R. Zubek, MDA:
(2018) 18–33. A formal approach to game design and
[26] G. Spaargaren et al., Contrast. More game research, AAAI Workshop -
sustainable lifestyles and consumption. A Technical Report, 2004.
theoretical perspective for the analysis of [46] R. M. Ryan, E. L. Deci, Self-determination
transition processes within consumption theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
domains, Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. (2008). motivation, social development, and well-
[27] United Nations, Sustainable development being, American Psychologist, vol. 55, nr.
goal 12. Responsible consumption and 1 (1985) 68-78.
production, n.d. URL:
144
[47] M. Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The
psychology of optimal experience, Harper
Perennial, New York, NY, 1991.
[48] reGAIN app Ltd, reGAIN app, 2018.
[49] K. Loughrey, D. Ó Broin, Are we having
fun yet? Misapplying motivation to
gamification,” in: 2018 IEEE Games,
Entertainment, Media Conf., 2018, pp.
529–533.
[50] E. D. Mekler, F. Brühlmann, A. N. Tuch,
K. Opwis, Towards understanding the
effects of individual gamification elements
on intrinsic motivation and performance,
Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 71
(2017) 525–534.
145