| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-03 10:21] – [Values based approach] maja | marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-03 11:23] – [Game On!] maja |
|---|
| |
| {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/23248481071}}\\ | {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/23248481071}}\\ |
| | |
| | The visions of Marine CoLAB in 2021 |
| | |
| | * Value is at heart of Marine CoLAB, connecting the public with oceans and increasing the environmental benefit. Value is also a challenge for Marine CoLAB, defining the rules of the game. The CoLAB is a framework that feeds the organisations involved with game-changing ideas and projects. It isn’t quite clear what the size of its pond is, but it is likely that its purpose is to think, or perhaps think and implement, more likely to connect and spawn initiatives rather than do everything itself. |
| | |
| | * Marine CoLAB perpetuates change in three areas: governmental/governance, corporate and public awareness. In 2021 Marine CoLAB made the new biodiversity treaty possible, the planning of land and sea is integrated, there are now ocean ministers and ambassadors, aquatic carbon sinks have been established and new super-ports are operational. In the corporate arena Marine CoLAB was involved in successful collaboration with industries (plastic and others) and the world has seen significant carbon cuts. In terms of public awareness, the widespread and mutually beneficial engagement of people with oceans is increasing due to Marine CoLAB’s persistent efforts. |
| | |
| | * Clarity about the added value of Marine CoLAB, for the organisations and the world. There is a clear articulation of strategy in three strands: |
| | * Actual experiments that show change; including learning from the process, replicating and adapting experiments to other areas, developing metrics, etc. |
| | * Good internal and external communication reaching broad audiences |
| | * Values shift |
| ====Mission / MIX==== | ====Mission / MIX==== |
| |
| Marine CoLAB is a network focused on values based solutions to protect and restore the ocean. We exist because a collective is a powerful means to address the urgent need for humans to value the ocean and drive change. We aim to achieve a shift in how the ocean is valued by individuals and society to improve ocean health. We tackle these issues by collaborating, incubating, innovating, catalysing and influencing. | <blockquote>Marine CoLAB is a network focused on values based solutions to protect and restore the ocean. We exist because a collective is a powerful means to address the urgent need for humans to value the ocean and drive change. We aim to achieve a shift in how the ocean is valued by individuals and society to improve ocean health. We tackle these issues by collaborating, incubating, innovating, catalysing and influencing.</blockquote> |
| |
| * Value shift: what is Marine CoLAB’s theory of change? All participating organisations have one, but the glue could be the 'values based approach’ | * Value shift: what is Marine CoLAB’s theory of change? All participating organisations have one, but the glue could be the 'values based approach’ |
| |
| {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/23331193605/}}\\ | {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/23331193605/}}\\ |
| | Ocean Engagement: gaming approaches |
| |
| * (cross reference with Sandy's notes) | "We're close to a tipping point on ocean experience games" |
| * ideas that have surfaced / developed | |
| * challenge; how/when to engage the pubic to change rules / process | Challenge: "how can we change perception of the value of oceans through digital media?" |
| * concluded that the first experiment was not so game focused, perhaps more suitable as a training tool | GameOn is an experiment to test the hypothesis that it is possible to do this by developing games or influencing game developers. |
| * perhaps better to focus on more general 'ocean awareness' | |
| * two main options | Several ides have surfaced, all with challenges and opportunities. The common challenge for all is deciding how and when to engage the pubic in the process, and who the target audience is (children, gamers, game developers…). It remains interesting to look at ways to make conservation games more mainstream, while at the same time focusing on awareness and education. There are many possible partners, but the CoLAB needs specific contacts and entry points to the games industry. |
| * "we're close to a tipping point on ocean experience games, imagery is swamped in action games" | |
| * influence exiting game devs or filmmakers / ocean 'consultants' / best practice guide | The first [[game on experiment]] focused on public engagement with rules related to oceans, which might be less game focused, perhaps more suitable as a training tool. Instead, it might be better to focus on more general 'ocean awareness'. So far it looks like there are two main possible directions: |
| * current strands | * Develop a game (see below) |
| * coached lab space to develop game(s) and/or app(s) | * Influence game developers: develop best practice guides, become a "one stop shop" or "think tank" for film makers and game developers… This approach would encourage leadership in design communities related to connecting transmedia stories to the value of oceans. |
| * develop add ons to existing games | |
| * develop games as tie ins to other games/films/etc | If Marine CoLAB would develop a game, different approaches are possible: |
| * BBC docos, google ocean, natgeo, etc | |
| * mainstream marine conservation game (cf. beyond (..?) rising tide - maxis?) | * **Coached lab session** or "challenge workshop" to develop (mini) game(s) and/or app(s) and add-ons to games, with different stakeholders. There is a possibility to conduct this experiment at ZSL, similar to 'fish hackathons'. The focus is on the process (journey) and education of diverse participants. Through the journey of a lab development session the participants create simple experiments to test the ideas and if successful, find ways to scale them. |
| * games can also be used as fund-raising vehicles | * Develop **add-ons to existing games** |
| * simple experiments to test ides -> scale | * Develop games as **tie-ins** to other games/films/etc (add to transmedia stories including BBC documentaries, Google Ocean, Natural Geographic programmes, etc |
| * possible direction | * Develop a full-blown mainstream **marine conservation game**, e.g. a ’simcity-like’ versions of initial scenarios (from [[http://lib.fo.am/marine_colab/workshop_201501|Workshop 1]], or SIM_MPA (cf. beyond (..?) rising tide - maxis?). The interesting aspects of this approach is to enhance both digital games with marine content and experiences of oceans for the gaming community (e.g. using augmented reality). |
| -> sim city like versions of initial scenarios (workshop 1) | |
| * three existing options for progress / requiring feedback | |
| * small lab games (c.f fish hackathon) | Out of these directions, the group distilled three most promising options for progress and looked at their advantages and disadvantages: |
| * advantage; existing format, easier to test assumptions with small games, process based learning | |
| * disadvantage; does a game actually 'work' as a way to develop connections to the oceans?, hackathon outcomes can be lacklustre. potentially limited impact. | Small Lab Games |
| * full on game | * Advantages: existing format, easier to test assumptions with small games, practice-based learning of values; connecting environmental and technological challenges |
| * advantage; AR tech becoming cheaper & easier to create, existing research from BBC on AR in education, potentially wide audience, amplification. | * Disadvantages: does developing a mini game in a lab actually 'work' as a way to develop connections to the oceans? Hackathon process can be too technology focused, the outcomes can be lacklustre, with limited audience impact. |
| * disadvantage; high expectations, cost of development, educational games are usually boring, competitive | |
| * questions; target audience? SIM-MPA? | Marine Conservation Game |
| * marine game/film leadership | * advantage; Making such a game would connect digital and conservation worlds; There is possibly large impact and educational opportunities, potentially reaching wide audiences, and amplification of Marine CoLAB messages. Augmented Reality (AR) tech becoming cheaper, easier to create and access (see existing research from BBC on AR in education). Added advantage: experiencing remote places without having to travel there (e.g. Galapagos with ZSL) |
| * advantage; might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/agenda based) consulting, | * disadvantage; high expectations, competitive market, difficult to create impact, cost of development is high, educational games are perceived as boring |
| good time for BBC Oceans, influence through others. how to maintain contact with influencers | |
| * disadvantage; 'Nemo effect' (clown fish), Disney often difficult to work with, span of control is extended, possible dilution. | Influencing Game Developers |
| * ZSL project, virtual Chagos, funding during 2016. British, controversial, inaccessible. | * advantage; might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/agenda based) consulting where Marine CoLAB can add positive messages, influence through others; connection points to value of oceans through different media; broader impact than developing a single game - potential for driving systemic change, for example by connecting to games bloggers and journalists |
| * interest | * disadvantage; Hard to reach and connect this target group for mutual benefit (though this is slowly changing); Nemo effect' (clown fish), Disney often difficult to work with, span of control is extended, possible dilution. |
| * giles, testing assumptions, experiments | |
| * heather, perhaps as a masters project for students {Exeter uni, Chagos project) | |
| * mirella, perhaps more preliminary research to see which option is most promising | Next steps; |
| * MSC, existing contacts (octonauts) potential test audience. | * more preliminary research to see which option is most promising |
| * next steps; | * Sandy, Sue & Heather: Potential research questions, masters topics for students of Exeter University: "next week" to draft a few paragraphs re. research scope etc. Envisaged results: a "research think piece" |
| * potential research questions, masters topics. | * Heather: connect this experiment to the ZSL project on virtual Chagos (British, controversial, inaccessible), funding during 2016 for a workshop/lab/hackathon. This can be used as a test case for the "small lab games" approach |
| * sandy, sue & heather draft a few paragraphs re. research scope etc. "next week" | * Sue/MCS, probe existing contacts (Octonauts) as potential test audience. |
| | |
| | |
| | (cross reference with Sandy's notes) |
| | |
| | |
| |
| ====Plastics project==== | ====Plastics project==== |
nik