Understanding the Energy Transition: A Playful Approach to Expanding Renewable Energy

In recent years, renewable energy facilities such as photovoltaic systems have been developed in many places, perhaps in your region too. Some forms, like wind turbines, are clearly visible. Others seem to blend seamlessly into our landscape, for instance the use of forests (wood) for energy generation. This article describes a playful approach to getting familiar with different renewable energy technologies, the selection of suitable or possible sites, and the energy demand of Austrian municipalities.

The starting point was an existing concept developed by Hartmut Dumke as part of his dissertation “Renewable Energies for Regions – Demand and Competition for Land” (2017). The game board is a map of a selected region in Austria. Different renewable energy technologies are represented by pins or tokens that can be placed on the board. The facility configurations are stored in a spreadsheet, which shows how much the placed facilities contribute to the region’s existing energy demand. The goal is to cover the region’s entire energy demand with renewable energy.

This concept was taken up and developed further within the Energy4All project. First, we identified potential target groups for the planning game in conversations with the case-study municipalities. Two use cases emerged:

1. Strategy development at the regional and municipal level with political decision-makers and other stakeholders
2. Conveying the complex relationships between energy demand, energy supply and their spatial distribution to children and laymen

We pursued the further development of the Energy Transition Game for both use cases, although the needs of the two target groups seemed to be very different. On the one hand, we increased the complexity by integrating air-source heat pumps into the facility set, so that we could address current developments with expert audiences. We also created several monthly demand profiles that represent different characteristics of municipalities, such as winter tourism or industrial communities. On the other hand, the game had to become easier to understand so that children could use it too.

For this reason, the revision focused in particular on how the key parameters are presented (descriptions of facility configurations and properties, energy quantities, etc.). Instead of a plain spreadsheet view, we developed a digital dashboard (displayed in the browser) that presents clear graphics, for example on energy demand, generation profiles and the land requirements of the generation technologies. We also introduced two game modes: a “Standard” mode, in which the annual balance must be covered, and an “Expert” mode, in which the target is too cover monthly distribution.

The new digital dashboard also makes gameplay smoother. Adding a new facility to the game board (map) can be transferred to the dashboard with a single mouse click and immediately updates the graphics. The contribution of each new facility is thus captured and visualized directly as part of meeting the demand.

In addition, we fundamentally revised the map display of the game board, in terms of both content and visualization. By adjusting colours, line weights, hatching and transparencies, we achieved a harmonious, easily readable map image that works independently of the region.

At the same time, we made sure to use data sources that are as consistent as possible across Austria. Availability depends heavily on the topic, but we were able to do this for administrative boundaries, water bodies, buildings, protected areas and forest. Specific contents, such as priority zones for agriculture (or other uses) and existing renewable energy facilities on open land, still have to be collected and mapped on a case-by-case basis.

To make the facility set easier to understand, we created a poster as accompanying material. It illustrates the different technologies with images and describes their main characteristics in text.

During the development of the Energy Transition Game, several versions were used in university courses with students. We collected feedback on the current state of the game through a survey, and the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the next revision. In this way, the development steps were regularly fed back to potential users, and the development was designed as a process with multi-phase loops.

Results from University Teaching

In total, 75 students were surveyed. Responses were collected as ratings on a 5-point Likert scale or as free text (partly with predefined answer options).

85% of participants stated that they were already moderately to completely familiar with the topic of energy transition. Nevertheless, students consistently reported a strong learning effect. Only one person said they had learned hardly anything new, while the majority gained a lot (to very much) additional knowledge. Energy demand (scale, spatial distribution, etc.) surprised players the most.

The overall rating of the game was very positive: 93% of respondents (70 people) gave it 4 (good) or 5 (very good) points. In line with this, 33% of participants found the game rules and procedure easy to understand, and 56% found them very easy to understand. For feedback on the dashboard and the content of the gameboard (map), a change is visible between earlier and later surveys. During the sessions in March and April 2026, a few negative ratings (1 or 2 points, i.e. “strongly disagree” or “disagree”) were given in regard to the readability and practicability.

The written feedback concerned both the presentation and the content of the game. For example, the visualization of rivers on the map was criticized:

“The river placed on the Map was not clear for me”

The performance (responsiveness) of the dashboard also had to be adjusted several times:

“The digital dashboard needs improvement”

Regarding the game content, participants most often asked for current technologies:

“Heat pumps are missing; industrial potentials, e.g. for waste heat, would be exciting”

We took this feedback on board and gave these aspects special attention in the further development. The survey results confirm that the adjustments were successful: in the sessions in May and June 2026, no negative ratings (below 3 points) were given in this regard.

Participants reported particularly strong learning effects regarding the interplay of the various aspects of the transformation process and the dimensions involved, in terms of both energy quantities and land area:

“The most valuable lesson was realizing how interconnected everything is. Energy production, land use, transportation, ecology, and community needs cannot be planned separately; a change in one system affects all the others.”

and

“how much each technology contributes to energy generation, how much we actually need to build to achieve 100% [renewables], and that the difference between months (winter vs summer) is so big”

The Likert-scale ratings confirm this. Asked whether the game helped them better understand the interrelations and trade-offs of the energy transition, 47% (35 people) agreed and 28% (21 people) strongly agreed. One participant praised the game in this respect:

“A clear overview of the impact of decisions.”

Only two participants would be unlikely to recommend the Energy Transition Game; everyone else would. Respondents rated its suitability for school classes (80%) and decision-makers (69%) particularly highly.