Playing games for risk prevention: design, implementation and testing of serious games in recent European projects UPStrat-MAFA and KnowRISK

In the last decade, bottom-up strategies of risk education have raised importance, making serious games to become an alternative or complementary teaching tool for enhancing skills for a collaborative and adaptive response to social-ecological challenges. This study describes issues and challenges of serious games implemented within the framework of two European projects, namely UPStrat-MAFA (Urban Disaster Prevention Strategies using Macroseismic Fields and FAult sources) and KnowRISK (Know your city, Reduce seISmic risK through non-structural elements); the goal is to instil in young people a proactive attitude towards the mitigation of seismic risk . The games were tested in some dissemination events focussed on fostering seismic risk preparedness in students and improving good practices. We discuss the performance of our games even against more standard approaches to risk education. Our experience shows a rise of students’ engagement compared to standard learning activities. The games were effective as students were able to grasp the most relevant actions to reduce risk.


Introduction
Despite the recent scientific and technological advances in disaster research studies and the potential improvement in the Disaster Risk Management (DRM hereinafter), the devastating impact of some disasters shows that both concept and practice on disaster preparation are not adequately conveyed to the society. Among the reasons for the gap between science and society, the standard top-down approach may play a crucial role. In this approach the decision making is centralized and managed by governments, without any real participation of the affected communities. This in turn often neglects local cultural roots or economic and social needs, causing the community exposed to risk to perceive these actions as inappropriate and potentially not useful (Solinska-Nowak et al., 2018). The topdown approaches to mitigate risks are often bound to the concepts of "maintenance and protection" (Saban, 2014), lack of openness and adaptability of policies to local situations and, above all, decisions are based on a low public participation. They often do not provide enough information about risks neither introduce the risk concepts into the national curriculum or do not enable individuals to be aware about potential risks and how to mitigate them.
However, in the last decades, in the effort to at least partly overcome the limitations to effective risk communication and relief provision, bottom-up strategies of risk education have raised importance (Musacchio et al., 2015a). The bottom-up approach is based on a paradigm shift towards a more participatory and community-based DRM strategies. The main advantage is that end-users are treated not merely as a target audience but as partners in co-learning through processes and products that reflect their own contributions (Roncoli, 2006). The participatory style of education has taken to use games/simulations as an alternative, or complementary, teaching tool to enhance collaborative and adaptive skills and response to social-ecological challenges. In fact, following the shift in DRM strategies, decision-making and practice, there is increased recognition (Gampell and Gaillard, 2016;Gampell et al., 2017Gampell et al., , 2019 that serious games (that is, games developed not only for entertainment) may serve as participatory tools, and support understanding of essential issues, such as sustainable development, climate-change mitigation and DRM activities (Solinska-Nowak et al., 2018). Obviously, designing an education game requires additional issues than enjoyment, involvement, motivation and adrenaline. These games have specific targets (learn about a certain issue, understand how to protect or to avoid unwanted consequences among the others) so their design must take into account the motivation, the educative target and the necessary appeal to make them worth playing. The "game approach" to risk education demands thus to tailor products to the learning styles and capacities of the audience and have different impacts on specific groups of people. A proper calibration of the technical language and of the media to reach a target public may turn more successful an education campaign (Musacchio and Solarino, 2019).
For example, digital multimedia or internet outcomes are highly appealing to younger rather than older people as younger people ("digital natives") are more inclined to new technology than older generations. Angelovska (2019) recalls that in the 2017 84% of people not using the internet in Europe, which accounts for 16% of the total population, is aged 55-74 while Tapscott (1998) claims that children possess an intuitive, spontaneous relationship with digital technology. However, according to Buckingham, (2013) it is not the technology itself to establish a gap between generations but how it is used and the use it is made for. A notable exception are video and computer games. In fact, a research study suggests that the average age of game players is thirty-three (Entertainment Software Association, 2007), that means that also young adults may be involved in the learning through games strategy.
In this framework, games result to be an adequate choice when addressing risk communication to students and, more in general, the younger public. If teachers supplement the formal lessons with alternative methods and techniques, by playing a game, students may learn without even realizing they do and, at the same time, have fun. The action of playing makes use of the most natural ability of the human brain to acquire knowledge effortlessly, somewhat "accidentally." Indeed, as highly interactive and social activities, games and simulations may trigger a positive emotional response in players that can make them a compelling, challenging, memorable and fun learning experience (Bachofen et al., 2012).
Serious games are designed to foster knowledge, learn about certain subjects and expand concepts. Their success is based on the fact that playing a game involves inductive reasoning, memory, concentration, often also teamwork and cooperation, which are all requisites of learning. Serious games and simulations have the potential to enhance the process of remembering information (Solinska-Nowak et al., 2018). Thus playing a game can, under certain circumstances, improve or support the learning process.
Many research and governmental institutions designed educational games as a support to teaching and learning in a particular subject (Zirawaga et al., 2017). Solinska-Nowak et al.
(2018) provide an overview of 45 non-commercial digital and analogue serious games/simulations dealing with issues related to DRM. In some cases, they are deliverables of research projects and are hosted on governmental or institutional web sites. Some of these games can be played online, and are single player. However, the most are face to face multiplayer with direct interactions games. Unfortunately, use of serious games in schools remains rare, and is unlikely to be integrated into the curriculum (Kirriemuir and Mcfarlane, 2004). This was especially true in the early 2000, when teachers knew little about the digital world or at least much less than their students (Prensky, 2003). Nevertheless, the inventory of serious games is increasing as the game for prevention approach spreads (http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/en/knowledge/miscellaneous/earthquake-games/ among the others).
In this paper we describe how we designed serious games within two European Community funded projects, namely the UPStrat-MAFA (Urban Disaster Prevention Strategies using Macroseismic Fields and FAult Sources, 2012) and KnowRISK (Know your city, Reduce seISmic risK through non-structural elements, 2017). In the UPStrat-MAFA, aiming at the implementation of innovative prevention approaches to consistently link prevention measures to preparedness and response needs (Musacchio et al. 2015a, b;Musacchio et al., 2017), the serious game Treme-Treme ("Shake-Shake") was designed (Barreto, 2014;Barreto et al. 2014;Botelho, 2019). Treme-Treme (www.treme-treme.pt) has a carefully thought-out educational purpose to improve student knowledge about earthquake science and preparedness in a fun way, appropriate for elementary school age kids. In the KnowRISK project, a research program about Non Structural Damage (NSD hereinafter) and vulnerability during an earthquake, a few educational games to disseminate the results to students and to foster best practices were designed. In particular the "Do it right: be safer!" and the" Find the difference: be safer!" games will be described.
We here discuss the pros and cons of the approaches followed in each research project to design the games; we also estimate their impact in terms of preparedness within each project. Finally, we comment on the first feedbacks from the adoption of these tools to inform about disasters and foster disaster risk reduction (DRR hereinafter).  (Solarino et al., in press). They aim at raising awareness on risky situation within building contents in business buildings, home and schools respectively. The Practical and Students Short Guide show risky situations and indicate simple mitigation measures. The former aims at helping citizens to acquire and apply simple mitigation measures and describes how to render more safe the own house by doing actions of increasing difficulty and cost. It is designed as a path from risky to safe environment by moving, protecting, securing and retrofitting ( Figure 1). Students Short Guide is devoted to students. It portrays familiar situations that pupils might be caught into while being at school: seismic shaking affecting a classroom, a science laboratory, the canteen, the gym dressing room and the office of school's principle. Similarly, it addresses seismic shaking while being at home: in a bedroom living room, a kitchen, a bathroom or a balcony. The Practical Guide inspired the board game "Do it right: be safer!" while the Students Short Guide was used to develop the game" Find the difference: be safer!". The motivation for designing these games is intuitive. Most of the deliverables of the two projects are adult-oriented, whereas a great effort has been made to adapt them to a larger public by a large use of cartoons, little text with simplified and non-technical explanations.
The most efficient way to transfer the contents of these deliverables, and thus the preventative actions and best practices, to a young audience has been to realize games.
The simple rules of these games together with the fact that all may be played in teams or single players make them even more appealing. In particular, when teams are involved, a great stimulus to play and win is the competition among players. In turn, even players that may be not interested in the topic of the games may join to seek win and have to learn.
Moreover, all games can be played with or without the supervision of a teacher or an educator, making them playable in a variety of environments and situations.
By playing these games, the players are forced to imagine a scenario that resembles their classroom or their house. Such an approach is similar to that of other games and techniques, like the Virtual Reality (Lovreglio et al., 2017), that represent novel and effective alternatives to overcome the limitations of traditional approaches like evacuation drills, especially in buildings where such approaches cannot be easily implemented.
Once they have found the right solutions for the game, they may transfer their acquired knowledge to their own environment and get, at least, a more expert view on the vulnerability of it.

Description and rules of the games
The games described in this work cover a wide variety of topics. They range from preparedness measures and a proper behaviour during an earthquake (Treme-Treme) to preventative actions at home and in school (Do it right: be safer! and Find the difference: be safer!). Treme-Treme teaches how to reduce the risk of injury, how to react and be selfsufficient for up to three days during an emergency. Through the game, players learn about items needed for a disaster preparedness kit, as well as safe and dangerous locations of their home when an earthquake occurs. The other two games refer to non-structural damage on building contents. This is the damage easiest to mitigate: in most situations it does not require specials skills or costs in order to be reduced. It therefore prompts actions that citizens and even young people could either undertake or promote.  where the real world situation refers to life in a seismic zone where an earthquake can occur at any time or it is actually striking when action happens. Avatars have to implement problem solving strategies in order to increase their safety to be prepared or to behave properly while the shaking is striking. Due to the fact that disaster risk education is frequently conducted by researchers and technical experts, with teachers and students rarely part of this discussion (Gampell et al., 2017;Petal, 2007), Treme-Treme was designed to be an effective learning tool and increase student knowledge about earthquake science and preparedness in a fun way (Fig. 2) choose to be, namely a seismologist, an engineer, a civil protection officer, a fireman ( Figure   3).  The players are teamed in two groups and a moderator presents the game, the scientific and the best practice background framework. Key issues to be discussed before starting the game are: (1) earthquakes cannot be prevented, but losses can be successfully reduced; (2) if one lives in any area prone to seismic hazard he is exposed to injuries, damage and long-term financial consequences; (3) therefore one must take action to reduce vulnerability of his house.
It is expected of the moderator to engage discussions, giving reasons and motivate the public towards proactive attitude.  The game can be played either in small groups, by using boards displaying the two environments, or with a classroom as a whole, by plotting on a wall board the two images.
The kids are asked to spot the difference before and after solutions to reduce vulnerability of NSE and explain the reason for their choice.
We tested the game in schools (Figure 8) within the risk communication protocol that was implemented during the KnowRISK project (Musacchio et al., in press).
Discussion is usually sparkling and kids tell their own story on their experience or on the situation in their own bedroom. They happen to check their classroom to verify if it is safe.

Discussion and conclusions
Much of the content that students need to learn is not motivating for them. It is probably safe to say that today's teachers, trainers, and educators are rarely as effective as they might be in the motivational realm, and this often causes difficulties in convincing otherwise highly stimulated students to learn (Prensky, 2003). This is particularly an issue in the field of disaster risk mitigation where the involvement of young people cannot to be neglected since, in an emergency, they are among the most vulnerable.
Serious games are a clever way to convey scientific concepts and to teach best practices (Musacchio et al., 2015c) to the public. They rely on a participatory approach where students often interact with scenarios that are not common in everyday life like a big earthquake, a tsunami or an unsustainable increase of the temperature at a worldwide scale. These games can be included in the edutainment, activities that are both educational and enjoyable, although this definition mainly applies to tv programs or software. In this approach the educational messages are hidden under a form of entertainment very familiar to people and, as a consequence, appealing and natural for them. In this perspective, games have a strong potential to fill the gap among adults, teens and children in any educational campaign. If carefully designed, they may make the difference between just adequate and highly effective communication through motivated and emotional involvement.
In this paper we have described the serious games realized in two recent projects, namely the UPStrat-MAFA and KnowRISK programs. In overall the games cover a wide range of ages, each one being specific for different groups of students from elementary schools to university and are mainly devoted to seismic prevention. The games were played in several science outreach events such as ScienzAperta ("Open Science"), the Genoa Science Festival, in museums and in a few schools in the frame of the educational activities that the authors usually carry out (both in Portugal and Italy), reaching a few thousand students.
Since the games can be downloaded on the internet, we believe that the number of involved people will grow, although this may not correspond to the same number of players.
We here discuss the pros and cons of our approach and we try to estimate the impact of our games on the path to preparedness and safety. Many authors agree on the role and added value of serious games in the field of natural risks. For example, Solinska-Nowak et al, 2018, state that DRM-related serious games/simulations offer a rich social experience with players collaboratively solving a problem. However, authors highlight that it is not straightforward to quantitatively estimate the improvement in the learning process due to the contribution of serious games. The research studies by Djaouti et al.,2011, Ulrich, 1997, Di Loreto et al., 2012, among the others have proven that little insight is available via either developers or users regarding the effectiveness of games. These limitations apply to our games too. In particular, it is very difficult to estimate any long-term evaluation of the activities' impact.
A simpler issue is to evaluate the impact of our games on the awareness and preparedness of the players versus a "standard" approach (e.g. frontal teaching, scientific conference). We first discuss this in a quantitative way and then in an experience-basedl perspective.
During the outreach event "ScienzAperta" middle and high schools' students attend a series of activities that include short conferences, laboratories and games. In 2018, the closing activity consisted in playing "Do it right, be safer" (figure 6). We submitted to our visitors a questionnaire (Musacchio et al., in press) aiming at exploring their knowledge, attitude and practice on how to mitigate non-structural damage before (T0) and after (T1) their participation in the game. It must be remarked that the differences in the answers in the questionnaires, which are shown in figure 9, are due to the overall outreach event since the contribution of the game itself cannot be extrapolated. However, the game was the only activity that dealt with specific issues concerning non-structural elements. The concept behind the game was that actions can be linked to a path of increasing efforts. Figure 9 shows that students grasped the idea that just lowering a heavy object or securing items to the wall to prevent tumbling is a worthwhile and effective effort towards risk reduction.
One additional way to estimate the impact of our serious games is based on the examination of the attitude of students during the game compared with the "standard" learning activity (e.g. a conference). This review does not give insight on the improvement of the learning process but, as shown by many authors, the amount of participation and the emotional engagement, which cannot be estimated if not by a visual analysis, are requisites for a motivated learning. In playing a game students are able to freely express their ideas and knowledge although they are in a formal environment as the classroom can be.
In particular, there are few aspects that deserve attention: -games trigger discussion among players more than a regular lesson or talk. Discussion is always positive since usually within a game framework there is a peer engagement approach: different points of view are shared by someone at the same level. Often it is not easy to explain a personal point of view to a teacher or a parent while it is much easier to a classmate.
-games establish a fruitful competition, that in turn summons even those students that would not participate to group activities.
-games make people ponder more on answers. Since making a wrong choice or giving a wrong answer may disadvantage the team or the player itself, answers are pondered more than in a normal interview. This has in turn a deeper impact on memory and knowledge.
-games make people reflect on errors. Again, the structure of the game makes people think about the errors and distinguish-remember the correct answer.
-information given by games based on visual display are easier to remember. Figure 9: quantitative assessment of effectiveness for the Do it Right: be safer! and Find the difference: be safer! The diagrams plot the answers to the following two questions: "rate the importance, in reducing vulnerability to NSE, to lower heavy objects (left); "rate the importance, in reducing vulnerability to NSE, to secure heavy objects "(right). The percentage of answers over the total are shown at T0 (before) and T1 (after) gaming; 1-to-7 are Likert-type (Likert, 1932) scale grades from 1=not-important to 7=very-important.
Our experience with serious games is then very encouraging. We strongly believe that the motivation as provided by games is a key point to foster education, given that the message to be conveyed is sound and adequately formatted. However, as stated by Solinska-Nowak et al., 2018, regardless of their many advantages, serious games/simulations cannot be treated as a standalone disaster-awareness raising tool. Therefore, more detailed information on mechanisms of hazards, exposure and vulnerabilities should be provided to participants even in more traditional formats.