Wildeverse
.svg)
This case innovation has been analysed using the Transformative Intervention Mixes (TIMs) framework. The framework maps the regulatory, economic, social‑behavioural, technological and material interventions at play, clarifying how these elements interact and what this configuration suggests about the innovation’s capacity to support transformative change.
Mobile Apps and Games
Wildeverse: an augmented reality mobile game designed to generate support for ape conservation and encourage pro-conservation behaviours; evaluated via a randomised control trial against a documentary comparison.
Conservation outreach and behaviour change (public engagement for great ape conservation)
Digital games are positioned as a scalable outreach channel reaching audiences not typically engaged by conventional conservation outreach; the study tests impacts on knowledge, attitudes and donation behaviour.
Individual-level engagement delivered via a globally accessible mobile game; evaluation conducted experimentally with participants.
Practical: game-based outreach intended to encourage pro-environmental behaviours (with donation behaviour tested and no evidence of effect).
Political: No explicit evidence in the sources.
Personal: measured changes in environmental knowledge/attitudes, with games performing comparably to documentaries.
Mobile distribution is described as scalable, tapping into a large global gaming audience; however, evidence of behavioural impact (donations) was not found in the evaluation.
Summary
This case is strongly evidenced in Technology, Emotional appeal, and Voluntary-advisory-educational tools, using an augmented reality game to deliver conservation narratives and learning-oriented content. Knowledge effects are evidenced through measured changes in environmental knowledge and attitudes, with games performing as well as documentaries in these outcomes. Social norms and behavioural change are weaker: the evaluation found no evidence that Wildeverse increased revealed donation behaviour, highlighting a values–behaviour gap within this medium. Regulatory and Financial / Market-Based instruments are not part of the documented intervention mechanism, aside from website statements about potential future in-app purchases. The configuration implies a primarily personal and epistemic pathway (attitudes/knowledge), with limited demonstrated translation to practical behavioural outcomes in the tested donation measure; an implementation-relevant insight is that evaluation suggests engagement alone is insufficient to shift revealed giving without additional mechanisms.
Implications for Intervention Mix Design (analytical reflection): To enhance transformative scope beyond attitudinal outcomes, additional tool alignment would likely be needed with mechanisms that reduce friction for behaviour (e.g., structured prompts, commitments, or embedded pathways to action) and/or complementary institutional instruments; these are not evidenced as implemented in the study. The sources support viewing digital games as one component in a broader intervention mix rather than a standalone driver of measurable pro-conservation behaviour. This reflection identifies missing categories without implying they currently operate in the case.
| Tool Category | Examples | How it ENABLES (mechanisms) | How it HINDERS (barriers) | Opportunities to strengthen | Risks / caveats | Additional suggestions and resources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Integration of digital learning tools into education policies/strategies to increase public engagement; partnerships with technology developers to improve its potential. | |||||
| Financial / Market-Based | Website notes planned activation of in-app purchases with a percentage of profits directed to conservation partners (Wildeverse website, ‘Support apes’ page). | Potential revenue channel for partner support is described, but as a future feature rather than documented implementation. | No evidence of implemented economic incentives or payment mechanisms within the evaluated intervention. | If implemented, transparent allocation and partner linkages would be necessary to maintain credibility (not evaluated). | Monetisation could create equity barriers or undermine trust if perceived as extractive (not documented). | Conservation Basic Income (separate catalogue entry) as a distinct financial mechanism for conservation support. Small in-game conservation rewards linked to low-threshold donations or micro-donations, Conservation season pass with earmarked revenue and in-app reporting on funded projects, Equity-sensitive pricing (pay-what-you-want, localised low prices, sponsor-paid access). |
| Information / Education | The trial measures changes in participants’ knowledge and attitudes after exposure to the game. | Game-based content functions as an outreach intervention supporting positive environmental knowledge and attitudes. | The study notes barriers to creating successful interventions at the scale needed; specific educational barriers within the game are not detailed in extracted text. | Robust impact evaluation is explicitly recommended for conservation gaming as a medium. | Knowledge gains may not translate into behaviour change. | Documentary outreach used as comparator in the study (complementary conventional outreach channel). |
| Choice Architecture | ||||||
| Social Norms | ||||||
| Emotional Appeal | The game is designed to generate support for ape conservation via immersive narratives and engagement. | Immersion and narrative engagement are positioned to motivate concern and support, contributing to attitudinal outcomes. | Combining emotional engagement with clearer behavioural pathways is implied by the donation null result (analytical inference, consistent with reported gap). | Strong emotional engagement without actionable pathways may produce concern without behaviour change (consistent with values–behaviour gap finding). | Community-led storytelling (as in ICCA case) as a complementary narrative mechanism at place-based scales. | |
| Technology | Augmented reality mobile game. | Mobile AR delivery provides an accessible, scalable platform to reach audiences beyond conventional conservation outreach channels. | No explicit evidence in the sources on technical barriers; the evaluation is conducted under experimental conditions rather than in-field rollout constraints. | The paper calls for robust impact evaluations of conservation games to inform design and deployment. | Demonstrated risk that technological engagement does not necessarily shift revealed donation behaviour. | Macroscope-type monitoring tools as separate technologies supporting conservation decision-making (distinct function). |
| Infrastructure (Hard/Soft) | ||||||
| Biophysical Resources | ||||||
| Knowledge | Measured knowledge and attitude outcomes show games perform as well as documentaries in supporting positive environmental knowledge and attitudes. | Evidence supports the game as an informational medium that can shift knowledge/attitudes in the short term. | Behavioural outcomes. | Using experimental insight to iterate designs is explicitly positioned as valuable for conservation gaming. | Risk of over-claiming behavioural impact from knowledge/attitude shifts is highlighted by null donation effect. | LLM-based policy analysis tools as complementary knowledge technologies at policy scales (distinct case). |
| Other |
Note: Blank cells reflect that the documentary evidence available for this case did not contain sufficiently explicit information to address these dimensions. This absence should not be interpreted as implying that such mechanisms were irrelevant or ineffective, but simply that they were not documented within the scope of the source materials.