Savanna Life – evaluating board game players’ revealed preferences to inform conservation and development planning in the Greater Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem

Introduction Conservation and development planning is complex and can involve trade-offs and conflicts of interest. Games are an increasingly popular approach to exploring such conflicts and facilitating discussion and future planning. However, few studies have compared the preferences of different stakeholders in such games. Methods The board game Savanna Life was played in 12 communities (24 games with 96 players, resulting in 2,889 observations) in 2018 and 2019 within the Greater Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem, characterised by sharp conservation-agropastoral livelihood trade-offs. The game was designed to capture the challenges experienced by communities and provide a safe space for exploring alternative livelihood and investment strategies. We explore how players of different genders, ethnicities, and nationalities maximise their payoffs within the game's logic, allocate preferences across the conservation-development nexus, and change preferences under growing constraints during the game. Results Using revealed preferences for game moves as an indicator, we found that, particularly men, prioritised maximising individual benefits over the game’s primary objective of winning collectively. We also found that players generally preferred moves representing agro-pastoral production over moves aligned with Western development objectives. Moves with negative conservation implications were least preferred. Players also clearly adapted their preferences to increasing constraints. Preferences varied among players based on gender, ethnicity, and nationality, with development and conservation planning implications. Discussion Post-game follow-up revealed that players considered the game realistic, and they stated planning real-life changes to how they make livelihood decisions based on insights gained while playing the game, suggesting that the game can motivate behavioural change through cognitive transfer. These results support the usefulness of games, such as Savanna Life, in providing insights for a sustainable future. However, the main benefit may be facilitating community debates after the research team departs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Conservation Science
Published
2025-09-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2025.1604967
Primary Topic
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Savanna Life – evaluating board game players’ revealed preferences to inform conservation and development planning in the Greater Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem

Henrik Meilby, Espen Moe, Christian A. Klöckner, Gine Roll Skjærvø et al.
Frontiers in Conservation Science
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
article

Savanna Life – evaluating board game players’ revealed preferences to inform conservation and development planning in the Greater Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem

Henrik Meilby, Espen Moe, Christian A. Klöckner, Gine Roll Skjærvø, Martin Reinhardt Nielsen, Bente J. Graae, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, Hans Peter Hartsteen
article en

Abstract

Introduction Conservation and development planning is complex and can involve trade-offs and conflicts of interest. Games are an increasingly popular approach to exploring such conflicts and facilitating discussion and future planning. However, few studies have compared the preferences of different stakeholders in such games. Methods The board game Savanna Life was played in 12 communities (24 games with 96 players, resulting in 2,889 observations) in 2018 and 2019 within the Greater Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem, characterised by sharp conservation-agropastoral livelihood trade-offs. The game was designed to capture the challenges experienced by communities and provide a safe space for exploring alternative livelihood and investment strategies. We explore how players of different genders, ethnicities, and nationalities maximise their payoffs within the game's logic, allocate preferences across the conservation-development nexus, and change preferences under growing constraints during the game. Results Using revealed preferences for game moves as an indicator, we found that, particularly men, prioritised maximising individual benefits over the game’s primary objective of winning collectively. We also found that players generally preferred moves representing agro-pastoral production over moves aligned with Western development objectives. Moves with negative conservation implications were least preferred. Players also clearly adapted their preferences to increasing constraints. Preferences varied among players based on gender, ethnicity, and nationality, with development and conservation planning implications. Discussion Post-game follow-up revealed that players considered the game realistic, and they stated planning real-life changes to how they make livelihood decisions based on insights gained while playing the game, suggesting that the game can motivate behavioural change through cognitive transfer. These results support the usefulness of games, such as Savanna Life, in providing insights for a sustainable future. However, the main benefit may be facilitating community debates after the research team departs.

Frontiers in Conservation ScienceVol. 6
University of Copenhagen (DK), Santa Fe Institute (US), Copenhagen Business School (DK), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO), Copenhagen Business Academy (DK), Frederiksberg Hospital (DK), University of Bristol (GB), Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE), University of California, Davis (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.