Department Environmental Social Sciences

Interest in citizen participation is increasing generally. Almost all operational research (OR) is engaged with clients, but it is mainly in the areas of Soft and Community OR that wider stakeholder and citizen participation has been a significant focus. It is the involvement of citizens that is the subject of this paper. We surveyed OR literature and compiled a corpus of 62 studies, the earliest from 1970, to systematically characterize the involvement of citizens in OR processes. Our review produced three findings: First, some fields of OR have embraced citizen participation, but this is not yet a major concern outside the field of Community OR. Second, citizen participation in OR processes is often driven by a moral rationale. Third, progress in information and communication technology (ICT) enables broad participation, but traditional processes requiring physical presence can also be participatory. From these insights, we formulate research opportunities for OR. (1) OR may join Community OR's endeavor to engage with and empower citizens who have so far rarely been involved in OR processes. (2) OR may identify benefits and drawbacks of digital OR processes in empirical studies. (3) OR may determine whether involving large numbers of citizens is suitable for the societal scale. (4) OR may research building and maintaining trust. (5) OR may join efforts for data protection of participants. (6) OR may systematically report and reflect on participatory OR processes. (7) OR should continue researching the fair aggregation of individual inputs. Citizen participation in OR is topical and challenging. Pursuing these research opportunities will contribute to OR fulfilling its mandate of better decision-making in close cooperation with all affected stakeholders.

Innovative online interfaces informing and consulting citizens about their preferences for multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) could make public decision-making more participatory. We propose a three-faceted learning for decision-making framework and used it to test newly-designed online weight elicitation interfaces. We investigated two features meant to enhance learning: fully-fledged gamification with a narrative, interaction with nonplayer characters, and ambient music, and learning loops (LL) using consistency checks of elicited weights and the challenge to resolve inconsistencies. We operationalized our framework with a novel systematic set of measure instruments providing complementary data types. We designed a 2 × 2 between-subject experiment with pre- and postquestionnaires. Answers from 769 respondents, representative of the Swiss population in age and gender, indicated that the interfaces successfully raised awareness about wastewater management. Gamification was helpful: respondents performed better in the factual learning test, and unexpected social learning occurred. However, gamification lowered the perception of process understanding. The LL were beneficial: objectively, respondents performed better in the factual learning test. However, respondents perceived the LL as cognitively demanding and their factual learning as lower. Our structured assessment highlighted the need for further research to investigate, for instance, high interpersonal variability and the disparities between tested and perceived learning. Measuring preference construction remains challenging; and social learning should be added to the assessment framework. Applying such structured assessment of learning outcomes to more traditional operational research interventions would provide a baseline for future comparison.

We developed four online interfaces supporting citizen participation in decision-making. We included (1) learning loops (LLs), good practice in decision analysis, and (2) gamification, to enliven an otherwise long and tedious survey. We investigated the effects of these features on drop-out rate, perceived experience, and basic psychological needs (BPNs): autonomy, competence, and relatedness, all from self-determination theory. We also investigated how BPNs and individual causality orientation influence experience of the four interfaces. Answers from 785 respondents, representative of the Swiss German-speaking population in age and gender, provided insightful results. LLs and gamification increased drop-out rate. Experience was better explained by the BPN satisfaction than by the interface, and this was moderated by respondents’ causality orientations. LLs increased the challenge, and gamification enhanced the social experience and playfulness. LLs frustrated all three needs, and gamification satisfied relatedness. Autonomy and relatedness both positively influenced the social experience, but competence was negatively correlated with challenge. All observed effects were small. Hence, using gamification for decision-making is questionable, and understanding individual variability is a prerequisite; this study has helped disentangle the diversity of responses to survey design options.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is well suited to address complex public policy problems but could benefit from new tools to involve many laypeople. Online information on specialized topics could be more engaging by including game elements. This paper reports an experiment that assessed a gamified interface to (1) inform laypeople about the objectives to consider in wastewater management decisions, (2) assist them in constructing range-based preferences, and (3) provide a positive experience. We measured the effects with (1) a knowledge pre- and posttest, (2) the elicited weights and a range sensitivity index, and (3) an experience questionnaire based on self-determination theory. Answers from 174 participants indicated that participants learnt about the objectives and constructed preferences in both the gamified and control treatments. However, in neither were weights sufficiently adjusted. Our gamification making the ranges salient did not help overcome this bias. Both treatments were experienced as neutral to positive, the gamified being more entertaining. We discuss implications: if gamification of tools for participatory decision-making is to be promoted, it requires further research. Range insensitivity remains an unresolved bias in MCDA.

Investigating wastewater management matters: in many OECD countries, the conventional centralized system is reaching its limits. Alternative decentralized options exist. Some directly affect citizens with in-house wastewater treatment. Involving citizens in decision processes would legitimate the outcome and facilitate implementation. However, citizen participation is challenging because they are numerous, and need to learn about the topic and construct their opinion. To include citizens, we propose an innovative online survey based on Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT). Citizens receive value-focused information, and can communicate their preferences, captured as weights assigned to objectives. We collected quantitative and qualitative data, and elicited preferences from 184 young Swiss citizens, who will have to live with the decision outcome. In addition to reporting on insights for wastewater management, we assessed our survey, i.e. whether respondents learnt about the topic, constructed preferences, and understood the requirement to think in terms of objectives. Water quality and health protection mattered the most. The objectives directly concerning the respondents (time demand, attractiveness) were the least important. The best-ranked option in the subsequent Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis was a decentralized source separating system with dry toilets. Respondents were unaware that such decentralized options exist, indicating that learning about the topic occurred. Preferences were mostly newly constructed from no opinion, or pre-existing ones were reinforced. Our value-focused online survey helped citizens to understand the complex decision and construct their preferences. Swiss decision-makers, and beyond, should not be scared of a paradigm shift in wastewater management: the young generation seems ready to decentralize.

Serious games, gamification, or game-based interventions are increasingly used as tools to aid participatory decision-making processes, but their evaluation is often not very rigorous. Therefore, it is still unclear whether game-based interventions are really beneficial. We focused on the following overarching question: how effective are game-based interventions specifically designed to support decision-making processes. We used an illustrative case to reflect on this question. Using a published framework proposing that design processes of game-based interventions and their evaluation are intertwined, we designed simultaneously (1) a game-based intervention, specifically a card game and a workshop structure in which this card game is to be used, and (2) its evaluation procedure, formulating evaluation questions and proposing measure instruments based on the literature. We pre-tested the evaluation procedure in a small pilot study with 10 students. We illustrate the use of the design framework for an intervention to generate objectives in a decision-making process about sustainable wastewater management. Through our illustrative case, we identify future research opportunities about designing game-based interventions and evaluating their effectiveness. We found that it is possible to address the dual challenge of game-based interventions for participatory decision-making processes: (1) designing an informative and engaging game-based intervention without telling participants what to think and (2) designing a tailored evaluation procedure. Designing the game-based intervention and its evaluation simultaneously is valuable, because both are strongly intertwined. However, conducting the evaluation is demanding and requires the collaborative efforts of scientists, including across disciplinary boundaries. For instance, the data collection effort could be distributed among different research groups to increase sample size. This would allow including control treatment(s) and covering the variation span of the confounding factors more broadly. All material is made openly available to foster collaborative future research.

Complex environmental and public policy decisions profit from structured procedures such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). To support such decisions, the new open source application ValueDecisions provides advanced analysis and visualization with no programming expected from users. Based on multi-attribute value theory (MAVT), it offers analysis for decisions with conflicting and interacting objectives, multiple stakeholders, and uncertain consequences of options. Programmed in R, the shiny web framework makes it accessible via a graphical user interface in the browser. We exemplify using ValueDecisions for a wastewater infrastructure planning case in the Paris region. We surveyed preferences of 655 citizens and conducted sensitivity analysis of preference parameters. The best management options were robust across a range of preference profiles and assumptions. To evaluate the app, we developed a novel usability test based on the ISO standard for software quality and surveyed students using ValueDecisions for case studies.

Objective
Standardized face-to-face interviews are widely used in low and middle-income countries to collect data for social science and health research. Such interviews can be long and tedious. In an attempt to improve the respondents' experience of interviews, we developed a concept of gamified interview format by including a game element. Gamification is reported to increase engagement in tasks, but results from rigorously developed research are equivocal, and a theory of gamification is still needed.

Materials & methods
We evaluated the proposed gamification with a randomized controlled trial based on self-determination theory, specifically on the basic psychological needs theory. In total, 1266 respondents were interviewed. Single and multiple mediation analyses were used to understand the effects of the gamified interview format.

Results
Our evaluation showed that the gamification we had developed did not improve the outcome, the experience of the interview reported by respondent. The effect of the gamified interview format depended on the ability of respondents: gamification can be counterproductive if it overburdens the respondents. However, the basic psychological needs theory explained the mechanisms of action of gamification well: feeling competent and related to others improved the reported experience of the interview.

Conclusion
We emphasize the need to develop context-specific gamification and invite researchers to conduct equivalently rigorous evaluations of gamification in future studies.

Widely available digital technologies are empowering citizens who are increasingly well informed and involved in numerous water, climate, and environmental challenges. Citizen science can serve many different purposes, from the "pleasure of doing science" to complementing observations, increasing scientific literacy, and supporting collaborative behaviour to solve specific water management problems. Still, procedures on how to incorporate citizens' knowledge effectively to inform policy and decision-making are lagging behind. Moreover, general conceptual frameworks are unavailable, preventing the widespread uptake of citizen science approaches for more participatory cross-sectorial water governance. In this work, we identify the shared constituents, interfaces and interlinkages between hydrological sciences and other academic and non-academic disciplines in addressing water issues. Our goal is to conceptualize a transdisciplinary framework for valuing citizen science and advancing the hydrological sciences. Joint efforts between hydrological, computer and social sciences are envisaged for integrating human sensing and behavioural mechanisms into the framework. Expanding opportunities of online communities complement the fundamental value of on-site surveying and indigenous knowledge. This work is promoted by the Citizens AND HYdrology (CANDHY) Working Group established by the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS).

Most of the literature on serious games and gamification calls for a shift from evaluating practices to using theories to assess them. While the former is necessary to justify using game-based approaches, the latter enables understanding “why” game-based approaches are beneficial (or not). Based on earlier review papers and the papers in this special issue of Water entitled “Understanding game-based approaches for improving sustainable water governance: the potential of serious games to solve water problems”, we show that game-based approaches in a water governance context are relatively diverse. In particular, the expected aims, targeted audience, and spatial and temporal scales are factors that differentiate game-based approaches. These factors also strongly influence the design of game-based approaches and the research developed to assess them. We developed a framework to guide and reflect on the design and assessment of game-based approaches, and we suggest opportunities for future research. In particular, we highlight the lack of game-based approaches that can support “society-driven” sustainable water governance.