Make Waste Fun Again! A Gamification Approach to Recycling

Abstract

There is a recognised need to improve recycling rates. One current issue is that knowledge and incentives to recycle are sometimes lacking. Mechanisms of gamification can be used to motivate and engage people to recycle, but this has not been thoroughly explored to date. To address this issue, four focus groups were conducted to bridge the gap between gamification and recycling behaviour. Results from these focus groups showed that functional solutions are preferred and that gamification can preferably be implemented digitally to bridge the gap between behaviour and knowledge. Feedback, awards, achievements, collaborative and competitive elements, as well as supplementary functions are gamified mechanisms that can be used for this purpose. This study contributes to the understanding and implementation of gamification for use in waste management and to influence positive recycling behaviour.

Full text

Make waste fun again! A gamification approach to recycling
Miralem Helmefalk1[0000-00 03-2924-2874] and Joacim Rosenlund1[0000-0003-2818 -6911]
1 Linnaeus University, 391 82, Kalmar, Sweden
miralem.helmefalk@lnu.se (corresponding author)
joacim.rosenlund@lnu.se
Abstract. There is a recognised need to improve recycling rates. One current
issue is that knowledge and incentives to recycle are sometimes lacking. Mecha-
nisms of gamification can be used to motivate and engage people to recycle, but
this has not been thoroughly explored to date. To address this issue, four focus
groups were conducted to bridge the gap between gamification and recycling be-
haviour. Results from these focus groups showed that functional solutions are
preferred and that gamification can preferably be implemented digitally to bridge
the gap between behaviour and knowledge. Feedback, awards, achievements,
collaborative and competitive elements, as well as supplementary functions are
gamified mechanisms that can be used for this purpose. This study contributes to
the understanding and implementation of gamification for use in waste manage-
ment and to influence positive recycling behaviour.
Keywords: Gamification, Recycling, Waste management, Mechanics, Behav-
iour, Bin.
1 Introduction
1.1 Intro
In UN sustainable development goal 12 the importance of recycling is emphasised.
Further, the circular economy is now a worldwide movement aiming for a resource
efficient society without waste [1]. Recycling is increasingly recognized as a local as
well as worldwide economic and social concern. A well-functioning waste management
system is dependent on the users and their behaviour. For waste management organisa-
tions to achieve effective recycling, it is crucial to understand the thoughts and feeling
of people to modify imperative stimuli to impact recycling behaviours. A gamification
approach can encourage these individuals by increasing their engagement and motiva-
tion.
While there has been a discussion in the literature about serious games and gamify-
ing recycling [2, 3], there has not been any substantial output. We argue that the gami-
fication framework has not been sufficiently explored in the context of waste manage-
ment. As such we want to answer the research question “how can gamification improve
recycling behaviour?”.
To address this question, we conducted four focus groups where the participants
engaged in a discussion about recycling and how to gamify this. These helped us to
identify solutions for recycling challenges with the help of gamification mechanisms.

2
Potential propositions for further research were also identified aiding in the application
of a gamification framework to promote recycling in particular and sustainability in
general.
1.2 Background
An increasingly amount of resources and time are invested in finding ways to improve
the recycling rates among citizens. A previous research project in south Sweden showed
a good potential for sorting more of the household waste [4]. A follow up project
showed the importance of integrating research with solutions in practice through col-
laboration between researchers and waste management associations [5], working to-
gether to find solutions rather than problems.
The case used in this paper is based on a newly formed waste management
association. The association introduced kerbside collection (where the bins are outside
on the sidewalk) with all fractions present in the bins as these are divided into different
compartments. These have an advantage of being close to home but studies have also
shown that these can be more expensive than sorting in coloured bags for example [6].
Waste management behaviour has been shown to be predicted by environmental val-
ues, situational characteristics and psychological factors [7]. Different stakeholders
have different influence on the waste management system, thus site-specific studies are
necessary to evaluate how these works. Identified factors that influence waste sorting
programmes include: distance between property and collection system, type of col-
lected material, residential structure, information, economic incentives and alternative
places for discharge [8]. The lack of space and lack of feedback about the effects of
sorting are two issues that have been identified in connection to recycling [9]. Being
able to sort out waste fractions close to home has also been shown to improve sorting
rates along with information channels to support this [10]. In the past many waste man-
agement actors have put emphasis on functional traits such as the distance to bins and
availability [11].
In contrast to functional traits there is evidence that the most important factors for
a person to start considering to recycle is time and resources, sometimes defined as
effort [12]. The Swedish Waste Management Association have reported on the demo-
graphic factors and behaviour concerning sorting. Further, information is important to
change established norms and habits. There is also a need for citizens to know about
the potential consequences of not sorting [13]. The report also acknowledges the im-
portance of waste management organisations and property owners to collaborate.
One of the strongest predictors on recycling behaviours are internal facilitators, such as
knowledge and commitment, followed by external incentives such as money and social
pressure [14]. While human recycling behaviour is widely researched, such as within
motivational theories, far less has been conducted using a gamification framework that
consider cognitive, emotional and behavioural elements. For example, there is a recog-
nized gap in between what people say they recycle and what is actually observed in
measurements [15].

3
2 Theory – Towards a framework of gamification
Gamification is a broad concept, covering different subjects and domains [16]. Gener-
ally, it is defined as employing the fundamental mechanics of games in non-game con-
texts [17]. A central feature of gamification is the ability to motivate and engage people
to conducts various behaviours through these elements [18-20]. It should not be con-
founded with games in general, but rather the various mechanics and features that exists
within games, such as competitive elements, social interaction, leader boards or badges
[21]. These mechanics have been found to have an impact on different psychological
concepts, such as arousal, engagement other [22-25]. For example, Burgun [26] states
that young people are born into the logic of gaming and that some students are spending
time playing games as much as going to school.
Unquestionably, games are used as a leisure activity, but research has also found
evidence [27, 28] of games being effective for facilitating learning, concentration and
involvement in different activities. It has been argued in research whether or not gami-
fication is a new phenomenon [29], there is no doubt that the bulk of literature has
grown on gamification in the last decade. Nacke and Deterding [30] states that gamifi-
cation has matured to be a comprehensive framework of which can be used to facilitate
further research. Thus, gamification has been widely employed by various domains,
such as crowdsourcing, health, computer science, software development, tourism, and
marketing [16].
An important foundation for gamification is the mechanics and dynamics (some-
times referred interchangeably) which are employed into different processes and ser-
vices. Some mechanics are more common than other and these are points, badges and
leader boards, which are more often employed for describing the effects of gamification
[18, 31]. Despite being very generalized there are many more that are used in research
[32]. Many of these are recommended to be implemented in relation to the actual user,
or as Dale [33] who mentions, “Good gamification design should be user-centric and
not mechanism-centric”. This is also in line with what Burke [34] states that mechanics
should not be pasted upon existing services or processes without fully implementing
them as being part of the process. It is also crucial to understand that these mechanics
are influencing people cognitively and emotionally, which is a prerequisite for being
engaging and motivating. Thus, it is seldom these mechanics are used, researched or
mentioned without the mental states of people.
Psychological concepts that have been examined in connection to gamification are
companionship, social engagement, positive emotions, fun, enjoyment, contribution,
relevance, accomplishment, growth and many other [e.g. 35, 36, 37]. A mental state
that is largely emphasized in research is the properties of engagement and motivation.
Motivation as a concept is widely studied and explored in research. One of the most
well explored theories is the self-determination theory (SDT) of which the well-known
article by Ryan and Deci [38] cites motivation as “To be motivated means to be moved
to do something”. They also state that is important to fall into the misconception that
motivation is a uniform concept, but rather a branch of different variations. It is also
often divided into external and internal incentives, where external are sanctions and
money, while internal are autonomy, self-fulfilment and other internal motivators [39].
It is foremost the internal ones that is central in gamification [40, 41] where people are
through joy and feeling of control, competence development and other psychological
needs engage themselves into tasks and activities [42].

4
The causative chain from mechanics to psychological mediators and on outcomes
are evident in literature [16, 45]. Although the linkage is discussed, it is still being rel-
atively unexplored for which mechanics exactly cause what psychological states, that
further mediates on what outcomes [46]. This is further pinpointed in Alahäivälä and
Oinas-Kukkonen [47] that state “There is not yet a clear, generally accepted vision of
the relationships among the contextual factors, gamification strategies, and study out-
comes.” (pp. 69).
The causal framework is most evidently discussed and portrayed in Hamari et al.
[45] and Helmefalk [16], that categorize the chain from mechanics, psychological me-
diators and lastly on measured outcomes. This sequence emphasizes the effects of me-
chanics on the mental state that subsequently facilitate behaviours. As mentioned, while
not clearly evidenced for which mechanic impacts on what mental state and behaviour,
there is generally a pattern in research. To illustrate this sequence, a person that has to
recycle trash is subjected to a gamified mechanic, such as direct feedback in form of a
sound of falling trash that plays when it is thrown into a bin [e.g. 48] These actions
facilitate enjoyment and arousal, which may increase the probability of conducting the
same behaviour over again. Thus, the mechanics cause a cognitive or emotional state
that facilitates a behaviour. The discussion can be summarized in the adapted model
from Helmefalk [16] in Figure 1. For the extended version see Helmefalk [16].
Fig. 1. Framework for gamification
3 Method
This study employed focus group design [49] to explore how and why individuals cat-
egorize and recycle waste. Moreover, this was in line with the theoretical framework,
being able to examine their cognitive, emotional reasoning and how this relates to be-
havioural outcomes. Four focus groups were employed following the phenomenologi-
cal approach by Calder´s (1977). The rationale and the advantage of employing focus
group design is to gain deeper knowledge by letting participants discuss the phenome-
non. This study concerns a new area of study, as such focus groups are an appropriate
approach for achieving empirical data with and exploratory approach [50, 51].
A partly open semi-structured interview scheme was used based on the theoretical
framework and the model (see Figure 1) to increase credibility for the gathered data
[52], and to answer the research question. While the focus group discussions were the-
oretically driven and somewhat restrained, they were sufficiently open to discover pat-
terns and themes in their answers. The interview scheme followed the logic of intro-
duction, transition and core questions, such as in Hamzah et al. [53].
The focus group participants were recruited with criteria sampling, with little to no
incentive than interest and were held in four different cities in Sweden. These were held
in four different cities in Sweden. The demographics of the participants in the groups
Mechanics
Psychological
mediators
Outcomes
Context and
domain

5
were both heterogeneous and homogeneous in order to get richer discussions and to
examine whether the outcomes in the discussions were different. The groups were cat-
egorized as following:
• [FG1] - Six older male participants, mixed employments, foreign background
• [FG2] - Six younger adults, mixed employments, women.
• [FG3] - Seven students, mixed backgrounds, similar age
• [FG4] - Six younger and elderly with mixed employments
The discussions were audio and video recorded after getting the participants consent.
To fresh up their memories, participants got a picture of a bin with different waste com-
partments. Each focus group took about 60-80 minutes and were transcribed afterwards.
To ensure that each participant was involved in the discussions to avoid group bias, the
moderator invited and asked all participants. The study design was based on the recy-
cling challenges identified in the background section and the gamification framework
developed in the theory section. When the recycling challenges were inputted into this
framework, this formed an approach for the focus groups leading to suggested solutions
based on gamification (see Figure 2).
Fig. 2. Study framework
4 Findings and discussion
4.1 Challenges of everyday recycling
Although it is common in past literature and is emphasized in the focus group discus-
sions (FGDs) that utilitarian attribute are the most important ones, such as the time,
distance and effort of waste separation [10-12], there are other aspects that were addi-
tional factors in the FGD. Aside from product specific attributes, participants discuss
their everyday habits of waste management and that a particular problem is their man-
agement of the interim storage is that it is highly diverse. Participants have not received
any complete government-provided system for guidance, but have come up with their
own solutions. Thus, each participant has a unique system prior to going out with the
waste. The distance in which they travel with the waste has an impact on the actual
waste separation, which becomes important when deigning gamified waste separation
bins. Participants in FGD have raised the incapability and frustration behind their made-
up solution in relation to the public bins. Regardless for which gamification mechanic
is implemented, it should consider the diverse processes when people recycle. What
became evident in the FGD was that the motivation behind separating waste is highly
intrinsically motivated, meaning that participants had a relatively good knowledge
about the existing environmental issues and aspired to contribute to solving these. It
indicates that gamification may be a good complement to foster these motivations as
being used for facilitating intrinsic motivation [54, 55]. However, as the majority of

6
respondents have good knowledge of the general issues of global warming, many indi-
cated that they did not have any particular knowledge of what happens after they have
separated the waste. Past literature has shown that knowledge is an important prerequi-
site for positive waste sorting behaviour [9], as such the participants mistrust discour-
ages them to fully commit to appropriate waste separation behaviour. Such as a partic-
ipant in FG4 states, “Long time ago, we heard that they burned all the trash at the same
station. It still sticks with you, despite knowing this has changed”. Participants in all
groups desires more information and knowledge for how to separate waste and what
will happen to it. In regards to gamification, mechanics has been used to teach people
and to change behaviour [43, 56], which is a fitting mechanic in this context. Partici-
pants discuss the issue that they do not see immediate results when being a good citizen,
and would like to receive feedback, regardless if it is about the waste management pro-
cess, or other implications one owns actions has on the environment (which can take
many years to realize). This logic is suitable in the context of gamification which may
through feedback provide immediate feedback [57] that may overcome these problems.
In regards to gamification, many have raised the difficulties of motivating people to be
responsive to gamification if not being fitting in the context. More specifically, partic-
ipants do not seek any particular visual game elements, but rather invisible mechanics
that ease or can be implemented with other services, such as an application that give
the user feedback simultaneously while implementing feedback or achievements [57].
One other concern raised in the FGDs is the aspect of children and that they may
have difficulty in being properly involved in the waste separation processes. They sug-
gest that the inclusion of gamification can make separation fun, hence more motivating
for children. As for now, no such occurrences appear in the everyday separation pro-
cess. It may be so that gamification can be used to disseminate knowledge of the envi-
ronment [2] and the importance of waste separation, which would spring long-term
effects on waste management behaviour.
4.2 Mechanics and psychology
The FGDs have brought up various perspectives of gamification mechanics in waste
separation processes. Firstly, participants recognized difficulties of implementing evi-
dent games for waste management, such as throwing thrash as balls in bins, but pre-
ferred mechanics to be as a supplementary function, aiding various aspects of waste
separation. Similar to the literature that emphasize gamification as tightly and carefully
interwoven into current offerings [33], which participants agree. One main raised issue
was that they perceived the waste separation process as a utilitarian errand, which could
be disturbed by additional steps in the waste separation process. Every added task could
potentially ruin the experience. Thus, many suggested tasks that did not interfere with
the physical separation processes. As previously mentioned, instant feedback was pre-
ferred, which provided them opportunity to understand what happens with the waste
and to learn about the consequences of separation, which would cultivate the concept
competence in self-determination theory – SDT [59]. Participants suggested everything
from QR stickers on bins that provide knowledge and the current waste issues. By im-
plementing a system that support the ease and the availability of information, they state
that their motivation could increase in separating waste better. By supporting interest-
ingly presented knowledge and usefulness as in [60], participants discussed that their
uncertainty would be reduced, more engaged, hence be more prone to put more effort

7
on improving recycling behaviour. Waste separation being a functional task, applica-
tions on the smartphone offered a greater opportunity to facilitate interaction between
customers and the waste company, which then could be gamified with visual elements,
achievements or other common mechanics, such as in [32].
Different kind of points or statistics were mentioned, although in different forms.
Some suggested points that could be collected, most preferably by zip numbers, as these
waste management companies are not allowed to gather data for individual households.
Lot of mechanics are consequently limited by this and different systems require data as
input for calculating and presenting information in a fun way. However, participants
suggested that this may be surmounted by presenting statistics for the close neighbour-
hood and let the points be a comparison in fostering competition. By including the as-
pect of competition, these would also facilitate collaboration between neighbours to
enhance the statistics, but also involve the concept of relatedness in SDT[59]. Aspects
that were of particular interest were the social components that enhanced motivation,
regardless wanting getting recognition by others or by avoiding public shaming, hence
separating waste correctly. Many of the mechanics were suggested to be transferred to
digital contexts, which subsequently depends on the person to install an app, or go to a
specific homepage. By doing so, great opportunities arise in cognitively and emotion-
ally engage people in either beginning or continuing dedicating more effort in separat-
ing waste.
4.3 Solutions and outcomes
The FGD´s came up with different solutions, which are suggested to influence various
outcomes and are of value for waste separation. As this study sought to examine how
waste separation can be enhanced and increase the amount of correct separated waste,
it was crucial to understand for which mechanics and psychological mediators fostered
this behaviour. The FGD´s emphasized that effort was a variable that was crucial to
satisfy and by gaining knowledge and instant feedback intrinsic motivation would be
enhanced, hence result in more correct sorted waste.
Table 1. Gamified solutions as identified by the focus groups
Recycling problems
Gamification concepts
Gamified solutions from focus
groups
Don’t know if my recycling mat-
ters
Competition / points / so-
cial
Neighbourhood c ommunity and
competition
Don’t know if my recycling mat-
ters / want to see r esults of recy-
cling
Reward / medal / gifts
Virtual receipt / data / medals /
discount on wast e pickup / gift
cards / a virtual tree that grows
Information about recycling
Feedback
Scan QR code with mobile / app /
social media
Knowledge about recycling /
Don’t know if my recycling mat-
ters
Reward / feedback
Modify bin as an information chan-
nel with stickers / app
Children
Making it easy and fun
Standing on a platform / c omics /
app / lighter lids
Sorting increase with social pres-
sure
Social aspect / leader-
board
Informing about consequences /
social media
Need to improve s orting behav-
iour
Relatedness
Personification of bins / good light-
ing

8
The different groups varied in which mechanics were important, but all of them were
close proximity to the concepts of fun, engagement(involvement), motivation, sense of
purpose, social collaboration/competition and growth. Specific solutions are seen in
table 1 where these are related to gamification mechanics and the challenges of recy-
cling.
5 Conclusions, implications and future research
Following the framework of gamification (M-PM-O) in Figure 1, and to answer the
research question, how can gamification improve recycling behaviour, this study high-
light difficulties, potential mechanics, potential causal chains on improving recycling
behaviour and specific solutions to achieve that. Findings show that participants prefer
functional solutions firstly, and that mechanics should be a supporting function/service.
The gamification should not interfere the process of physical waste separation, but be
implemented digitally, where they can implement feedback and knowledge, include
social mechanism, such as collaboration and competition, and provide rewards in terms
of discounts, nature-congruent products and virtual growing elements, such as a tree
growing as advancing.
This study contribute research the scarce knowledge in how gamification can be
implemented to enhance recycling behaviour. As previous research has considered
gamification as a potential tool for improving recycling and sustainability [22-25, 54,
55, 61], this present research shows empirically potential causal relationships between
mechanics, psychological mediators and outcomes. Furthermore, the present study con-
tributes to the advancement of gamification theory to explain different practical issues
in people’s everyday lives.
Being an exploratory study, more research is needed to empirically and experimen-
tally test various modifications of a bin, or a system that would include the mentioned
solutions. This would provide further knowledge on the scant empirical research in
gamification. Also, it is suggested to evolve the notion of waste separation to larger
waste separation facilities and how the context would differ in contrast to household
waste separation.
References
[1] Ghisellini, P., C. Cialani, and S. Ulgiati, ”A review on circular economy: the expected
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems”. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 2016. 114: pp. 11-32.
[2] Briones, A.G., P. Chamoso, A. Rivas, S. Rodríguez, F. De La Prieta, J. Prieto, and J.M.
Corchado. Use of gamification techniques to encourage garbage recycling. a smart city
approach. in International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations. 2018.
Springer.
[3] Berengueres, J., F. Alsuwairi, N. Zaki, and T. Ng. Gamification of a recycle bin with
emoticons. in Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-ro bot
interaction. 2013. IEEE Press.
[4] Bergbäck, B., L. Sörme, and A.-C. Bayard, Samhällets restprodukter-framtidens resurser.
2016, Linnaeus University: Kalmar.

9
[5] Rosenlund, J., L. Sörme, E. Voxberg, A.J.A.E.E. Augustsson, and Communication, ”When
appreciative inquiry guides action research: collaborating to improve waste sorting”. 2019:
pp. 1-14.
[6] Andersson, T., J.O. Sundqvist, J. Hultén, and F. Sandkvist, Ekonomisk jämförelse av två
system för fastighetsnära insamling av avfall. 2018, IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet: Stockholm.
[7] Barr, S., ”Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A UK case study of
household waste management”. Environment and behavior, 2007. 39(4): pp. 435-473.
[8] Dahlén, L. and A. Lagerkvist, ”Evaluation of recycling programmes in household waste
collection systems”. Waste Management & Rese arch, 2010. 28(7): pp. 577-586.
[9] Ordoñez, I., R. Harder, A. Nikitas, and U. Rahe, ”Waste sorting in apartments: integrating
the perspective of the user”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015. 106: pp. 669-679.
[10] Rousta, K., K. Bolton, M. Lundin, and L. Dahlén, ”Quantitative assessment of distance to
collection point and improved sorting information on source separation of household
waste”. Waste management, 2015. 40: pp. 22-30.
[11] Reid, D.H., P.D. Luyben, R.J. Rawers, J.S.J.E. Bailey, and Behavior, ”Newspaper recycling
behavior: The effects of prompting and proximity of containers”. 1976. 8(3) : pp. 471-482.
[12] Schultz, P.W. and S.J.S.p.q. Oskamp, ”Effort as a moderator of the attitude-behavior
relationship: General environmental concern and recycling”. 1996: pp. 375-383.
[13] Avfall Sverige, Beteendeförändring i mångfaldsområden. 2017, Avfall Sverige.
[14] Hornik, J., J. Cherian, M. Madansky, and C.J.T.J.o.S.-E. Narayana, ”Determinants of
recycling behavior: A synthesis of research results”. 1995. 24(1): pp. 105-127.
[15] Cheung, S.F., D.K.-S. Chan, Z.S.-Y.J.E. Wong, and behavior, ”Reexamining the theory of
planned behavior in understanding wastepaper recycling”. 1999. 31(5): pp. 587-612.
[16] Helmefalk, M., ”An interdisciplinary perspective on gamification: Mechanics,
psychological mediators and outcomes”. International Journal of Serious Games, 2019.
6(1): pp. 3-26.
[17] Deterding, S., D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke. From game design elements to
gamefulness: defining gamification. in Proceedings of the 15th international academic
MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments. 2011. ACM.
[18] Hamari, J., ”Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of
gamification”. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017. 71: pp. 469-478.
[19] Yang, Y., Y. Asaad, and Y. Dwivedi, ”Examining the impact of gamification on intention of
engagement and brand attitude in the marketing context”. Computers in Human Be havior,
2017. 73: pp. 459-469.
[20] Hamari, J., ”Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on
gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service”. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 2013. 12(4): pp. 236-245.
[21] Huotari, K. and J. Hamari, ”A definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in the
service marketing literature”. Electronic Markets, 2017. 27(1): pp. 21-31.
[22] Gamberini, L., N. Corradi, L. Zamboni, M. Perotti, C. Cadenazzi, S. Mandressi, . . . C.
Björkskog. Saving is fun: designing a persuasive game for power conservation. in
Proceedings of the 8th international conference on advances in computer entertainment
technology. 2011. ACM.
[23] Geelen, D., D. Keyson, S. Boess, and H. Brezet, ”Exploring the use of a game to stimulate
energy saving in households”. Journal of Design Research 14, 2012. 10(1-2): pp. 102-120.
[24] Gustafsson, A., C. Katzeff, and M. Bang, ”Evaluation of a pervasive game for domestic
energy engagement among teenagers”. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 2009. 7(4): pp.
54.

10
[25] Morganti, L., F. Pallavicini, E. Cadel, A. Candelieri, F. Archetti, and F. Mantovani, ”Gaming
for Earth: Serious games and gamification to engage consumers in pro-environmental
behaviours for energy efficiency”. Energy Research & Social Science, 2017. 29: pp. 95-102.
[26] Burgun, K., Game design theory: A new philosophy for understanding games. 2013: CRC
Press.
[27] Su, C.H. and C.H. Cheng, ”A mobile gamification learning system for improving the
learning motivation and achievements”. Journal of Computer Assi sted Learning, 2015.
31(3): pp. 268-286.
[28] Dicheva, D., C. Dichev, G. Agre, and G. Angelova, ”Gamification in education: A systematic
mapping study”. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2015. 18(3).
[29] Cochoy and Hagberg, The Business of Gamification: A Critical A nalysis, M. Dymek and P.
Zackariasson, Editors. 2016, Routledge. pp. 81-99.
[30] Nacke, L.E. and S. Deterding, ”The maturing of gamification research”. Comput ers in
Human Behavior, 2017. 71: pp. 450-454.
[31] Landers, R.N., K.N. Bauer, and R.C. Callan, ”Gamification of task performance with
leaderboards: A goal setting experiment”. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017. 71: pp.
508-515.
[32] Helmefalk, M., S. Lundqvist, and L. Marcusson, ”The Role of Mechanics in Gamification:
An Interdisciplinary Perspective”. International Journal of Virtual
Augmented Reality, 2019. 3(1): pp. 18-41.
[33] Dale, S., ”Gamification: Making work fun, or making fun of work?”. Business Information
Review, 2014. 31(2): pp. 82-90.
[34] Burke, B., Gamify: How gamification motivates people to do extraordinary things. 2016:
Routledge.
[35] Hofacker, C.F., K. de Ruyter, N.H. Lurie, P. Manchanda, and J. Donaldson, ”Gamification
and Mobile Marketing Effectiveness”. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2016. 34: pp. 25-
36.
[36] Harwood, T. and T. Garry, ”An investigation into gamification as a customer engagement
experience environment”. Journal of Services Marketing, 2015. 29(6-7): pp. 533-546.
[37] Pettit, R.K., L. McCoy, M. Kinney, and F.N. Schwartz, ”Student perceptions of gamified
audience response system interactions in large group lectures and via lecture capture
technology”. BMC medical education, 2015. 15(1): pp. 92.
[38] Ryan, R.M. and E.L. Deci, ”Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions”. Contemporary educational psychology, 2000. 25(1): pp. 54-67.
[39] Deci, E. and R.M. Ryan, Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
1985: Springer Science & Business Media.
[40] Sardi, L., A. Idri, and J.L. Fernández-Alemán, ”A systematic review of gamification in e-
health”. Journal of biomedical informatics, 2017. 71: pp. 31-48.
[41] Johnson, D., E. Horton, R. Mulcahy, and M. Foth, ”Gamification and serious games within
the domain of domestic energy consumption: A systematic review”. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017. 73: pp. 249-264.
[42] Deci, E.L., R.M. Ryan, M. Gagné, D.R. Leone, J. Usunov, and B.P. Kornazheva, ”Need
satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc
country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination”. Personality and social psychology
bulletin, 2001. 27(8): pp. 930-942.
[43] González, C.S., N. Gómez, V. Navarro, M. Cairós, C. Quirce, P. Toledo, and N. Marrero-
Gordillo, ”Learning healthy lifestyles through active videogames, motor games and the
gamification of educational activities”. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016. 55: pp. 529-
551.

11
[44] Högberg, J., P. Shams, and E. Wästlund, ”Gamified in-store mobile marketing: The mixed
effect of gamified point-of-purchase advertising”. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 2018.
[45] Hamari, J., J. Koivisto, and H. Sarsa. Does gamification work?--a literature review of
empirical studies on gamification. in System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii
International Conference on. 2014. IEEE.
[46] Hervas, R., D. Ruiz-Carrasco, T. Mondejar, and J. Bravo. Gamification mechanics for
behavioral change: a systematic review and proposed taxonomy. in Proceedings of the
11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare.
2017. ACM.
[47] Alahäivälä, T. and H. Oinas-Kukkonen, ”Understanding persuasion contexts in health
gamification: A systematic analysis of gamified health behavior change support systems
literature”. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2016. 96: pp. 62-70.
[48] TheGamefulCompany. Gamification of the trash bin. 2010 [cited 2018 7 june]; Available
from: http://theplayful.company/gamification-of-the-trash-bin/.
[49] Churchill, G.A., ”A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs”.
Journal of Marketing Research, 1979. 16(1): pp. 64-73.
[50] Malhotra, N.K., D. Nunan, and D. Birks, Marketing Research: An Applied Approach. 5 ed.
2017, Harlow: Pearson.
[51] Stewart, D.W. and P.N. Shamdasani, Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. 3 ed. Applied
Social Research Methods. 2015, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
[52] Kamberelis, G., G. Dimitradis, and A. Walker, Focus Group Research and/in Figured
Worlds, in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln,
Editors. 2017, SAGE Publications Inc: United States of America. pp. 692-716.
[53] Hamzah, Z.L., S.F. Syed Alwi, and M.N. Othman, ”Designing corporate brand experience in
an online context: A qualitative insight”. Journal of Business Research, 2014. 67: pp. 2299-
2310.
[54] Salvador, R., T. Romão, and P. Centieiro, A gesture interface game for energy
consumption awareness, in Advances in Computer Entertainment. 2012, Springer. pp.
352-367.
[55] Stone, R., R. Guest, S. Pahl, and C. Boomsma. Exploiting gaming technologies to visualise
dynamic thermal qualities of a domestic dwelling: Pilot study of an interactive virtual
apartment. in Behave Energy Conference. 2014.
[56] Mora, A., D. Riera, C. González, and J. Arnedo-Moreno, ”Gamification: a systematic review
of design frameworks”. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 2017. 29(3): pp. 516-
548.
[57] Conaway, R. and M.C. Garay, ”Gamification and service marketing”. Springerplus, 2014.
3(1): pp. 653.
[58] Pine, B.J. and J.H. Gilmore, The experience economy: work is theatre & every business a
stage. 1999: Harvard Business Press.
[59] Deci, E.L. and R.M. Ryan, ”The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior”. Psychological inquiry, 2000. 11(4): pp. 227-268.
[60] Aguiar-Castillo, L., A. Clavijo-Rodriguez, D. Saa-Perez, and R.J.S. Perez-Jimenez,
”Gamification as An Approach to Promote Tourist Recycling Behavior”. 2019. 11(8): pp.
2201.
[61] Knol, E. and P.W. De Vries, ”EnerCities-A serious game to stimulate sustainability and
energy conservation: Preliminary results”. 2011.