Could a computer game help avert climate catastrophe?

Ooooh playable. Image: Evojamaps.

It is the middle of the 2040s. After years of warning, scientists have just confirmed that the tipping point for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been triggered. Governments around the world are horrified as the news filters through. The days when they could reverse climate change by cutting carbon emissions to reduce global temperatures have just come to an end. There is now no way of stopping global sea levels from rising by over four metres. Nations and islands around the world are about to be lost forever.

It’s not real life – not yet anyway – but a computer game being played by a group of delegates and other attendees at the UN COP24 Climate Change conference in Katowice, Poland. Earth Remembers plays a bit like a 30-person version of Football Manager. Closely mirroring the real-life world climate change negotiations that take place every six months, each affected player represents a different country and has to negotiate with everyone else about how they’ll spend their national budget.

In-game shot. Image: GCU.

The game is the brainchild of a collaboration between undergraduates and academics from Glasgow Caledonian University, Utrecht University and the Purdue Climate Change Research Centre in Indiana. It uses an IPCC climate model to simulate the effects of each decision on carbon emissions, national GDP and the global temperature. Each turn skips forward five years, enabling players to “live” through the plausible future scenarios of 2033, 2038, 2043 and onwards out to 2118 to see how their decisions affect the world.

Games and the real world

Dang and blast. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The idea of using computer games, known as applied games, to help educate people goes back decades. Some might remember the “edutainment wave” of the 1990s, typified by games like Math Blaster (1994), where players had to do sums to release a tractor beam to pick up space rubbish.

Not only were such titles usually mediocre, the whole approach saw games as a kind of spoonful of sugar to make the nasty medicine of learning go down. It was bad teaching hiding inside bad games, and players were not usually fooled for long.

Fortunately, modern applied games are designed with a much better understanding of what makes games special. One of the best is the space exploration simulator Kerbal Space Program (2011). The object is to create a space programme for a race of little green humanoids called Kerbals. Players are encouraged to experiment and be creative. Once they have built the necessary equipment, they fly it with a simulator based on a realistic physics model.

The game wasn’t originally designed for educational purposes. But after NASA decided to back it, the developers created a version aimed at classrooms. Only by grappling with real-world trade offs between rocket components, life-support systems, fuel and weight, can players get the Kerbals to their nearest moon, the “Mun”, and then back in one piece.

Apparent reality

Earth Remembers was designed with the same sense of jeopardy in mind. Should a country’s budget be spent on researching new green technologies that could, for example, extract carbon from the atmosphere and sink it in the ground? Should it be spent reducing greenhouse-gas emissions with investments in green energy sources or on adapting to the impacts of climate change?

When events trigger in the game, each player/nation is given an event card that describes what has happened to their country. In one game, for example, the US was told that Miami’s coastline had seen significant flooding as a result of the ice sheet melt and that millions of residents were going to have to be moved further inland at great cost to the country. Meanwhile, other nations were coming to terms with news that certain industries had been dealt a massive blow.

Title screen. Image: GCU.

The whole point is to use narrative storytelling and imagination to make the human and economic cost of these events more concrete. As the Dutch psychologist Nico Frijda convincingly argued, people have emotional reactions to what is apparently real – not to what actually is real. Games give us a platform to create just such an apparent reality.

The final part of our game shifts 100 years into the future, and players are presented with scenarios derived from the decisions they have made. The Fijian people no longer reside in Fiji, for instance, but in a part of Australia renamed by one participant “Fijiland”. This prompted discussions about the challenges of identity loss, whether this community should be a separate nation, and who was responsible for this situation.


Our trip to Katowice was the second time we’d simulated the game, having previously demonstrated it to negotiators at the climate change talks in Bonn, Germany in the spring. When the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed in one of the games in Katowice, the sense of alarm in the room was palpable. We got great feedback from players about the way the game made tipping points like this one much more real. Negotiators will hopefully have kept this in mind when it came to the real-life discussions.

Next for us is to demonstrate Earth Remembers for scientists and policy specialists in Washington, DC in a few days’ time. We are also hoping to develop further enhancements to the game. This is where the potential of applied games lies: in mixing together the scientific and the artistic; the rational and the emotional. Do this well and you have the potential to create meaningful change – and maybe even help avert disaster in the process.

The Conversation

David Farrell, Lecturer & Researcher in Game Design, Glasgow Caledonian University and Hamid Homatash, Lecturer, Computer Games, Glasgow Caledonian University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

Covid-19 is highlighting cities' unequal access to green space

In the UK, Londoners are most likely to rely on their local park for green space, and have the best access to parks. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

As coronavirus lockdowns ease, people are flooding back to parks – but not everyone has easy access to green space in their city.

Statistics from Google show that park attendance in countries across the globe has shot up as people have been allowed to move around their cities again.

This is especially true in urban areas, where densely populated neighbourhoods limit the size of private green space – meaning residents have to go to the park to get in touch with nature. Readers from England can use our interactive tool below to find out how much green space people have access to in their area, and how it compares to the rest of the country.

 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s announcement Monday that people are allowed to mingle in parks and gardens with groups of up to six people was partially following what people were doing already.

Data from mobile phones show people have been returning to parks across the UK, and also across Europe, as weather improves and lockdown eases.

People have been returning to parks across the world

Stay-at-home requirements were eased in Italy on 4 May, which led to a flood of people returning to parks.

France eased restrictions on 1 May, and the UK eased up slightly on 13 May, allowing people to sit down in public places so long as they remain socially distanced.

Other countries have seen park attendance rise without major easing of lockdown – including Canada, Spain, and the US (although states there have individual rules and some have eased restrictions).

In some countries, people never really stopped going to parks.

Authorities in the Netherlands and Germany were not as strict as other countries about their citizens visiting local parks during lockdown, while Sweden has famously been avoiding placing many restrictions on people’s daily lives.


There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that access to green space has major benefits for public health.

A recent study by researchers at the University of Exeter found that spending time in the garden is linked to similar benefits for health and wellbeing as living in wealthy areas.

People with access to a private garden also had higher psychological wellbeing, and those with an outdoor space such as a yard were more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than those without access to outdoor space. 

Separate UK research has found that living with a regular view of a green space provides health benefits worth £300 per person per year.

Access is not shared equally, however, which has important implications for equality under lockdown, and the spread of disease.

Statistics from the UK show that one in eight households has no garden, making access to parks more important.

There is a geographic inequality here. Londoners, who have the least access to private gardens, are most likely to rely on their local park for green space, and have the best access to parks. 

However the high population in the capital means that on the whole, green space per person is lower – an issue for people living in densely populated cities everywhere.

There is also an occupational inequality.

Those on low pay – including in what are statistically classed as “semi-skilled” and “unskilled” manual occupations, casual workers and those who are unemployed – are almost three times as likely as those in managerial, administrative, professional occupations to be without a garden, meaning they rely more heavily on their local park.

Britain’s parks and fields are also at significant risk of development, according to new research by the Fields in Trust charity, which shows the number of people living further than a 10-minute walk from a public park rising by 5% over the next five years. That loss of green spaces is likely to impact disadvantaged communities the most, the researchers say.

This is borne out by looking at the parts of the country that have private gardens.

The least deprived areas have the largest gardens

Though the relationship is not crystal clear, it shows at the top end: Those living in the least deprived areas have the largest private green space.

Although the risk of catching coronavirus is lower outdoors, spending time in parks among other people is undoubtedly more risky when it comes to transmitting or catching the virus than spending time in your own outdoor space. 

Access to green space is therefore another example – along with the ability to work from home and death rates – of how the burden of the pandemic has not been equally shouldered by all.

Michael Goodier is a data reporter at New Statesman Media Group, and Josh Rayman is a graphics and data visualisation developer at New Statesman Media Group.