skip to main content
research-article

Life on Wings: Relating to a Bird's Life in a City through a Board Game

Published:06 October 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper presents a novel board game called Life on Wings, designed to create an experience and awareness about the life of birds in an urban landscape. The game lets users experience the life of six tropical urban birds across three seasons of a year. By performing different activities of birds, players learn about the challenges that an ever-changing urban environment creates for bird species. We reflect on our design process and describe the key design decisions that led to the development of our game. We also present insights of a playtesting session that was conducted with 11 participants to evaluate the design aspects of the game. Based on the study insights we present three implications on collaboration over competition, local game movement and longitudinal first-person perspective. Through this work, we aim to inspire more playful explorations on human-wildlife cohabitation.

References

  1. Sun Joo (grace) Ahn, Joshua Bostick, Elise Ogle, Kristine L. Nowak, Kara T. McGillicuddy, and Jeremy N. Bailenson. 2016. Experiencing Nature: Embodying Animals in Immersive Virtual Environments Increases Inclusion of Nature in Self and Involvement with Nature. Journal of computer-mediated communication: JCMC 21, 6: 399--419.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Kristina Andersen, Andy Boucher, David Chatting, Audrey Desjardins, Laura Devendorf, William Gaver, Tom Jenkins, William Odom, James Pierce, and Anna Vallgårda. 2019. Doing things with research through design: with what, with whom, and towards what ends? In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Peter Arnold, Rohit Ashok Khot, and Florian 'floyd'Mueller. 2018. You better eat to survive. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173225.3173238Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Harika Ozge Arslan, Christine Moseley, and Ceyhan Cigdemoglu. 2011. Taking attention on environmental issues by an attractive educational game: enviropoly. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 28: 801--806.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Asmodee Digital. 2019. Pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.asmodee-digital.com/en/pandemic/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Steven Baker, Jenny Waycott, Romina Carrasco, Thuong Hoang, and Frank Vetere. 2019. Exploring the Design of Social VR Experiences with Older Adults. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '19), 303--315.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jonathan Barbara. 2017. Measuring User Experience in Multiplayer Board Games. Games and Culture 12, 7--8: 623--649.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Rebecca Bayeck. 2020. Board games and learning: Why care in the digital age? Learning in the Digital Age. Retrieved from https://open.library.okstate.edu/learninginthedigitalage/chapter/board-games-and-learning-why-care-in-the-digital-age/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. P. M. Bennettand and P. H. Harvey. 1987. Active and resting metabolism in birds: allometry, phylogeny and ecology. Journal of zoology 213, 2: 327--344.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Jaime Berenguer. 2007. The Effect of Empathy in Proenvironmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Environment and behavior 39, 2: 269--283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Matthew Berland and Victor R. Lee. 2011. Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed computational thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning 1, 2: 65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Ian Bogost. 2005. Procedural literacy: Problem solving with programming, systems, and play. The journal of media literacy education 52, 1--2: 32--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Andy Boucher. 2016. The Form Design of the Datacatcher: A Research Prototype. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '16), 595--606.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Rachel Clarke, Sara Heitlinger, Ann Light, Laura Forlano, Marcus Foth, and Carl DiSalvo. 2019. More-than-human participation: design for sustainable smart city futures. Interactions 26, 3: 60--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Barbara Clucas, John M. Marzluff, Sonja Kübler, and Peter Meffert. 2011. New Directions in Urban Avian Ecology: Reciprocal Connections between Birds and Humans in Cities. In Perspectives in Urban Ecology: Ecosystems and Interactions between Humans and Nature in the Metropolis of Berlin, Wilfried Endlicher (ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 167--195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Benjamin M. P. Cuff, Sarah J. Brown, Laura Taylor, and Douglas J. Howat. 2016. Empathy: A Review of the Concept. Emotion review: journal of the International Society for Research on Emotion 8, 2: 144--153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Peter Dalsgaard and Kim Halskov. 2012. Reflective Design Documentation. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12), 428--437.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Zoe G. Davies, Richard A. Fuller, Alison Loram, Katherine N. Irvine, Victoria Sims, and Kevin J. Gaston. 2009. A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biological conservation 142, 4: 761--771.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Klaus Eisenack. 2013. A Climate Change Board Game for Interdisciplinary Communication and Education. Simulation & gaming 44, 2--3: 328--348.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Karl L. Evans, Dan E. Chamberlain, Ben J. Hatchwell, Richard D. Gregory, and Kevin J. Gaston. 2011. What makes an urban bird?: WHAT MAKES AN URBAN BIRD? Global change biology 17, 1: 32--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. Farber and K. Schrier. 2017. The strengths and limitations of using digital games as ?empathy machines." working paper for the UNESCO MGIEP (Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hans G. Furth and Jean Piaget. 1969. Piaget and knowledge: Theoretical foundations. Prentice Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Richard Garfield. 1993. Magic: The Gathering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. William Gaver, Andy Boucher, Michail Vanis, Andy Sheen, Dean Brown, Liliana Ovalle, Naho Matsuda, Amina Abbas-Nazari, and Robert Phillips. 2019. My Naturewatch Camera: Disseminating Practice Research with a Cheap and Easy DIY Design. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Eric Gordon and Steven Schirra. 2011. Playing with empathy: digital role-playing games in public meetings. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T '11), 179--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Yuqing Han, Junpeng Bai, Zhen Zhang, Ting Wu, Peng Chen, Guanglong Sun, Lingwei Miao, Zhifeng Xu, Liangjie Yu, Chaoying Zhu, Dongqin Zhao, Gang Ge, and Luzhang Ruan. 2019. Nest site selection for five common birds and their coexistence in an urban habitat. The Science of the total environment 690: 748--759.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Elizabeth Hargrave. 2019. Wingspan. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from https://stonemaiergames.com/games/wingspan/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Casper Harteveld. 2011. Triadic Game Design: Balancing Reality, Meaning and Play. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Dan Jolin. 2016. The rise and rise of tabletop gaming. The Guardian 25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mary Flanagan Jonathan Belman. Designing Games to Foster Empathy. Cognitive Technology 14, 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Catherine Jones and Konstantinos Papangelis. 2020. Reflective Practice: Lessons Learnt by Using Board Games as a Design Tool for Location-Based Games. In Geospatial Technologies for Local and Regional Development, 291--307.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Julia P. G. Jones, Laura Thomas?Walters, Niki A. Rust, and Diogo Veríssimo. 2019. Nature documentaries and saving nature: Reflections on the new Netflix series Our Planet. People and Nature 1, 4: 420--425.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Bernd Ploderer And Margot Brereton Kellie Vella. Human-Nature Relations in Urban Gardens: Explorations with Camera Traps. 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Erica Kleinman, Sara Chojnacki, and Magy Seif El-Nasr. 2021. The Gang's All Here: How People Used Games to cope with COVID19 Quarantine. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '21), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Matja Kljun, Klen opi Pucihar, Mark Lochrie, and Paul Egglestone. 2015. StreetGamez: A Moving Projector Platform for Projected Street Games. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '15), 589--594.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Martijn J. L. Kors, Gabriele Ferri, Erik D. van der Spek, Cas Ketel, and Ben A. M. Schouten. 2016. A Breathtaking Journey. On the Design of an Empathy-Arousing Mixed-Reality Game. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968110Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Martijn J. L. Kors, Erik D. van der Spek, Julia A. Bopp, Karel Millenaar, Rutger L. van Teutem, Gabriele Ferri, and Ben A. M. Schouten. 2020. The Curious Case of the Transdiegetic Cow, or a Mission to Foster Other-Oriented Empathy Through Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Andrey Krekhov, Sebastian Cmentowski, Katharina Emmerich, and Jens Krüger. 2019. Beyond Human: Animals as an Escape from Stereotype Avatars in Virtual Reality Games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '19), 439--451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. 1980. Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language. The journal of philosophy 77, 8: 453--486.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Matt Leacock. 2007. Pandemic. Mahopac, NY: Z-Man Games. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from https://www.zmangames.com/en/products/pandemic/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Jen Liu, Daragh Byrne, and Laura Devendorf. 2018. Design for Collaborative Survival: An Inquiry into Human-Fungi Relationships. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18), 40:1--40:13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Scott R. Loss, Tom Will, and Peter P. Marra. 2015. Direct Mortality of Birds from Anthropogenic Causes. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054133Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Jonas Löwgren. 2013. Annotated portfolios and other forms of intermediate-level knowledge. Interactions 20, 1: 30--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Regan L. Mandryk and Diego S. Maranan. 2002. False prophets: exploring hybrid board/video games. In CHI '02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '02), 640--641.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Michael L. McKinney. 2002. Urbanization, Biodiversity, and ConservationThe impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. Bioscience 52, 10: 883--890.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Michael L. McKinney. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological conservation 127, 3: 247--260.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Eleni Mellou. 1994. Play Theories: A contemporary review. Early Child Development and Care 102, 1: 91--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Gail F. Melson, Peter H. Kahn Jr, Alan Beck, and Batya Friedman. 2009. Robotic pets in human lives: Implications for the human--animal bond and for human relationships with personified technologies. The Journal of social issues 65, 3: 545--567.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Alice Mitchell. 2004. The Use of Computer and Video Games for Learning: A Review of the Literature. Learning and Skills Development Agency.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Anders Pape Møller. 2009. Successful city dwellers: a comparative study of the ecological characteristics of urban birds in the Western Palearctic. Oecologia 159, 4: 849--858.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Daphne A. Muller, Caro R. van Kessel, and Sam Janssen. 2017. Through Pink and Blue Glasses: Designing a Dispositional Empathy Game Using Gender Stereotypes and Virtual Reality. In Extended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 599--605.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Janet H. Murray and Janet Horowitz Murray. 2012. Inventing the Medium: Principles of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomas Nagel. 1974. What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical review 83, 4: 435.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Amanda B. Nickerson, Danielle Mele, and Dana Princiotta. 2008. Attachment and empathy as predictors of roles as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions. Journal of school psychology 46, 6: 687--703.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Kaitlyn L. Parkins, Susan B. Elbin, and Elle Barnes. 2015. Light, Glass, and Bird-Building Collisions in an Urban Park. Northeastern Naturalist 22, 1: 84--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Kylie Peppler, Joshua A. Danish, and David Phelps. 2013. Collaborative Gaming: Teaching Children About Complex Systems and Collective Behavior. Simulation & gaming 44, 5: 683--705.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Marianne Graves Petersen, Peter Gall Krogh, Martin Ludvigsen, and Andreas Lykke-Olesen. 2005. Floor interaction HCI reaching new ground. In CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '05), 1717--1720.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Robert Phillips and Kaylene Kau. 2019. Gaming for Active Nature Engagement. Animal Diplomacy Bureau: designing games to engage and create player agency in urban nature. The Design Journal 22, sup1: 1587--1602.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Daniel Pimentel. 2021. The Peril and Potential of XR-based Interactions with Wildlife. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Alenka Poplin. 2012. Playful public participation in urban planning: A case study for online serious games. Computers, environment and urban systems 36, 3: 195--206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Pamela C. Rasmussen, John C. Anderton, and Lynx Edicions. 2005. Birds of south Asia: the Ripley guide. British birds; an illustrated magazine devoted to the birds on the British list 98: 609--613.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Lloyd P. Rieber. 1996. Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational technology research and development: ETR & D 44, 2: 43--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Melissa J. Rogerson, Martin Gibbs, and Wally Smith. 2016. "I Love All the Bits": The Materiality of Boardgames. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3956--3969.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Danielle F. Shanahan, Michael W. Strohbach, Paige S. Warren, and Richard A. Fuller. 2013. The challenges of urban living. Avian Urban Ecology: 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Gillian Smith. 2015. An Analog History of Procedural Content Generation. In FDG. Retrieved from http://sokath.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/smith-fdg15.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Nancy Smith, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2017. Designing for Cohabitation: Naturecultures, Hybrids, and Decentering the Human in Design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), 1714--1725.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Eric L. Stocks, David A. Lishner, and Stephanie K. Decker. 2009. Altruism or psychological escape: Why does empathy promote prosocial behavior? European journal of social psychology 39, 5: 649--665.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. T. Marks And Thrower. 2018. The best board games you can play on PC. PC Gamer. Retrieved from https://www.pcgamer.com/best-digital-board-games/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Xin Tong, Servet Ulas, Weina Jin, Diane Gromala, and Chris Shaw. 2017. The design and evaluation of a body-sensing video game to foster empathy towards chronic pain patients. In Proceedings of the 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth '17), 244--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Jane Turner, David Browning, and Ann Morrison. 2018. Pathways & paws(es): engaging human-animal partnerships for community building and slow cities. In Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OzCHI '18), 184--188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Wesley Wang, Karan Pratap Singh, Yan Ting Mandy Chu, and Annick Huber. 2016. Educating bicycle safety and fostering empathy for cyclists with an affordable and game-based VR app. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (MobileHCI '16), 883--890.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2009. Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Drew Weisholtz. 2020. How classic board games are bringing families closer during the pandemic. TODAY. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from https://www.today.com/popculture/board-games-enjoy-surge-popularity-during-pandemic-t202377Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Stuart West. 2019. A bird-based game takes wing. Nature 569: 334+.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Yinglin Wu, Ling Xie, Shiang-Lin Huang, Ping Li, Zengwei Yuan, and Wenhua Liu. 2018. Using social media to strengthen public awareness of wildlife conservation. Ocean & coastal management 153: 76--83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. José P. Zagal, Jochen Rick, and Idris Hsi. 2006. Collaborative games: lessons learned from board games. Simulation & gaming 37, 1: 24--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Samaneh Zamanifard and Guo Freeman. 2019. "The Togetherness that We Crave": Experiencing Social VR in Long Distance Relationships. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2019 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '19), 438--442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research Through Design As a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07), 493--502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. 12 Birds With Amazingly Strange Defense Mechanisms. Retrieved June 3, 2021 from https://birdeden.com/birds-with-really-strange-defense-mechanismsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Birding the Future. Retrieved February 18, 2021 from https://www.birdingthefuture.net/overviewGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Animal Superpowers - Chris Woebken. Retrieved June 2, 2021 from http://cargocollective.com/chriswoebken/Animal-SuperpowersGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Life on Wings: Relating to a Bird's Life in a City through a Board Game

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 5, Issue CHI PLAY
      CHI PLAY
      September 2021
      1535 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3490463
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 October 2021
      Published in pacmhci Volume 5, Issue CHI PLAY

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader