Gameful civic engagement : A review of the literature on gamification of e-participation

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Government Information Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf Gameful civic engagement: A review of the literature on gamification of e-participation Lobna Hassan a,b,⁎ , Juho Hamari b a Gamification Group, Faculty of Humanities, University of Turku, Finland b Gamification Group, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication, Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 10, 33720 Tampere, Finland ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Gamification Games E-participation Governance Civic engagement Policy-making ABSTRACT With increased digitalization, governments and public institutes became potentially better able to practice fuller and wider ranges of democratic governance through e.g., e-participation. E-participation, as any means of engagement with the common good, is, however, a difficult area of human motivation as it can be seen to exist outside the common hurdles of the everyday life and where the effects of participation are often invisible or take a long time to materialize. Recent trends of digitalization, such as gamification; a popular approach for stimulating motivation, have been proposed as remedies to foster e-participation. A plethora of applications and research has emerged related to gamified e-participation. However, there is currently a dearth in our knowledge of how gamification is being applied, researched or what its possible positive and negative outcomes can be. This study employed a systematic literature review approach in order to summarize research and findings on gamified e-participation. 66 papers were reviewed, the majority of which indicated that gamified e-participation is linked to increased engagement, motivation, civic learning and enjoyment amongst other outcomes. Nonetheless, question remains as to ethical and inclusive gamification, for which, this research provides directions for future research. 1. Introduction Digitalization has enabled several methods of coordinating human capital, such as through crowdsourcing (Morschheuser, Hamari, Koivisto, & Maedche, 2017), sharing economies (Hamari, Sjöklint, & Ukkonen, 2016), gig economies (Lehdonvirta, Kässi, Hjorth, Barnard, & Graham, 2019) and especially, to this study, e-participation (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O'Leary, 2005;Gurstein, 2003). While it has always been a debate whether citizen participation and involvement in governance or political processes is efficient (Arnstein, 1969;Conge, 1988;Macintosh, 2004) especially in today's world of overabundance of (mis)information (Dryzek et al., 2019), many governments and societal actors wish to promote citizen participation for the potentially positive impact it can have on, for example, legitimacy of decision-making (Eränpalo, 2014; Islam, 2008;Lee & Kim, 2014;Toots, 2019). On the other hand, it has been observed that individuals' motivation to engage with these human capital coordination methods can be low. People often prefer to spend their time on activities of high personal relevance to them. (E-)participation, specific to this study, even when facilitated through relatively accessible digital rather than physical means (Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008;Sæbø, Rose, & Skiftenes Flak, 2008), often constitutes an activity that can be seen to exists outside the common hurdles of the everyday life and where the effects of engagement and time investments are often invisible or take a long time to materialize. (E)-participation is, hence, an area where it has often been a struggle to stimulate and maintain productive engagement (Alharbi, Kang, & Hawryszkiewycz, 2015;Bista, Nepal, Paris, & Colineau, 2014; Cernuzzi & Pane, 2014;Dryzek et al., 2019;Lee-Geiller & Lee, 2019). Digitalization, nonetheless, has in parallel spawned technological developments that seek to motivate user, consumer, and citizen engagement, such as through gamification. Gamification refers to designing systems, services and processes to provide positive, engaging experiences similar to the engaging experiences games provide, commonly with the aim of motivating beneficial behaviors (Hamari, 2019; Landers, Auer, Collmus, & Armstrong, 2018). As playing games has increasingly become a widely visible form of leisure with demonstrated affordances for human engagement, flourishing and skills development (Table 1) (Fröding & Peterson, 2013;Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014), interest exponentially grew in introducing gamification to various aspects of life such as to education, work, health management and habits formation amongst several areas where gamification has been introduced (see Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014;Koivisto and Hamari, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101461 Received 9 June 2019; Received in revised form 3 March 2020; Accepted 3 March 2020 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Hassan), [email protected] (J. Hamari). Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 Available online 07 April 2020 0740-624X/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/). T 2019;Morschheuser, Hamari, et al., 2017;Warmelink, Koivisto, Mayer, Vesa, & Hamari, 2018 for reviews). Gradually, consumers have come to expect that most of the systems they use are gamified in some form or another (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019;Sgueo, 2019). In the field of e-participation: gamification is similarly being actively introduced and appears to have the potential to increase citizen engagement with the common good and societal decision making (Asquer, 2014;Bista, Nepal, Colineau, & Paris, 2012;Eränpalo, 2014;Opromolla, 2015; Thiel, 2016c). Hence, a plethora of research and practical work has sprung up on gamified e-participation. The essence of games and gamification is voluntary engagement (Gordon & Baldwin-Philippi, 2014;Landers et al., 2018). But with the introduction of gamification to especially governmental and democratic processes, there are concerns that the power imbalance between governments and citizens would create situations where engagement with gamification is not fully voluntary or autonomous, supporting, at best, “libertarian paternalism” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2003) - which aims to reinforce desirable societal outcomes in a top-down approach, while allowing people a degree of autonomy and free-choice - to “nudge politics” (Raihani, 2013) where such reinforcement is perhaps done through means and is for purposes that may be questionable. At worst, the power imbalance might mean that gamification can come to be employed intentionally, or accidentally, as means of “sugar-coating” coercive governmental practices (Ampatzidou et al., 2018;Asquer, 2014) that not only strengthen citizen perception of e-participation as a pretense practice (Losh, 2009) but perhaps more dyspeptically, coerce compliance with governmental policies that are undesirable or inherently in violation of some civil rights (Asquer, 2014). Gamification, on the other hand, can be and has been used as a means of governmental opposition (Wang & Zhang, 2017) which may aid in the formation of a healthy, progressive, democratic society but this raises concerns as to the extent to which gamification may, intentionally or accidentally, come to reinforce anarchy through the same strategies (Reilhac, 2013). The aim of this work is to summarize and review the research that has been carried out on gamified e-participation so as to develop a knowledge base for understanding the contexts in which gamified eparticipation is being researched, how, for whom it is most attractive, and what are its outcomes be. This study followed a literature review process focused on summarization of knowledge (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015), reviewing 66 empirical and non-empirical research on gamified e-participation. Specifically, we conducted a representative, broad, descriptive review (Webster & Watson, 2002). This study allows a vantage point on the research that has been conducted on gamified eparticipation, the outcomes it brings about as well as provides avenues for future research. 2. Background 2.1. E-participation With the advancement of modern technology, participation of citizens in governance started to increasingly become electronically enabled since the early 1990s, in hopes of facilitating a wider reach and a better inclusion of marginalized groups in governance and democratic practices (Lee-Geiller & Lee, 2019;Macintosh, 2004;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015). Despite (e)participation becoming a relatively mature field of research, it remains problematic to define participation or its goals (Arnstein, 1969;Conge, 1988). E-participation can holistically be considered as technologically mediated interaction between the government and civil society (Sæbø et al., 2008). Focusing on its positive impact, (e)participation has been defined in terms of citizen engagement with each other and with the government towards the betterment of their community (Islam, 2008). The betterment of a community is, however, difficult to define or measure. More broadly. (e)participation is defined as local or national action, by an individual or a collective that positively or negatively impacts decision making regarding public goods, authority and urban structures (Conge, 1988). Perhaps a concise adaptation of this definition frames, e-participation as citizen involvement in political and governance processes (Bingham et al., 2005), connecting to Sherry Arnstein's (1969) seminal understanding of citizen participation as a redistribution of power by enabling the participation of the marginalized in political and governance processes. Of these processes, perhaps most notably, e-participation has Table 1 Key benefits associated with or caused by playing games (Granic et al., 2014) that gamification attempts to harness. Game benefits Game genre References Cognitive benefits: Enhancement of mental processes, especially, those associated with reasoning, learning and understanding Improved speed and accuracy of attention allocation Action, Shooter games Bavelier, Achtman, Mani, & Föcker, 2012;Green & Bavelier, 2012 Improved visual, spatial reasoning, often in a short time and to high levels Action, shooter games Green & Bavelier, 2012;Uttal et al., 2013 Improved problem solving and decision-making skills Puzzle, strategy, role-play games Adachi & Willoughby, 2013;Duke, 1995;Prensky, 2012;Steinkuehler & Duncan, 2008 Creative thinking All genres Jackson et al., 2012 Enhanced abilities to learn new skills and transfer said skills to contexts outside games Action, shooter games, Duke, 1995;Fröding & Peterson, 2013;Green & Bavelier, 2012; McGonigal, 2011;Uttal et al., 2013 Motivational benefits: Enhancement of the drive to pursue meaningful goals, often through celebration of small triumphs and persistence against failure Motivation style reliant on persistence and continuous effort All games Ventura, Shute, & Zhao, 2013 Encourages incremental development through concrete, immediate feedback All games Granic et al., 2014;McGonigal, 2011 Motivational experiences of autonomy, competence and relatedness All games Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006 Emotional benefits: Enhancement of mood regulation and emotional control capacities as well as providing a venue for experiencing a wide range of emotions Improved mood, relaxation, positive emotions and lower levels of anxiety and stress All games (especially ones with simple interfaces and play) Russoniello, O'Brien, & Parks, 2009;Ryan et al., 2006 Experiences of flow, transportation, and loss of selfconsciousness All games Csikszentmihalyi, 2000;Fröding & Peterson, 2013;Sherry, 2004 Deters negative emotional habits such as renumeration and inflexibility All games Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010 Social benefits: Enhancing the acquisition of prosocial and interpersonal skills that often facilitate group and prosocial activities Improved acquisition of (new) prosocial skills and behaviors Cooperative (action) games Ewoldsen et al., 2012;Gentile et al., 2009 Increased civic engagement and contribution to civic activity organization Cooperative (action) games Lenhart et al., 2008;Eränpalo, 2014 L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 2 been conceptualized as citizens' participation in the policymaking process (Macintosh, 2004). Policymaking is an integral aspect of governance that encompasses several stages, according to Ann Macintosh (2004): 1) agenda setting, in which the objectives of policies are determined, 2) analysis, where the objectives of and needs for policies are analyzed, 3) creation, which involves the drafting and passing of policies, 4) implementation, which is about the enactment of passed policies, and 5) monitoring, which is about the continuous observation of society so as to trigger future cycles of policymaking. Three levels of citizen engagement with these stages of policymaking could be possible (Macintosh, 2004); 1) enabling; a basic level, focused on provision of information to citizens, 2) engaging; an intermediate level of relatively limited two-way citizen-government interaction, and 3) empowering; where citizens actively co-create with the governments, bottom-up, as equal partners. These levels of e-participation reflect the ladder of participation suggested seminally by Sherry Arnstein (1969), except for the “non-participatory” lower rungs of the ladder and without an explicit examination of what could be pretense participation that is merely implemented for appearances (Losh, 2009). While a large number of people spend a significant portion of their time online (Hutchinson, 2015), the bulk of this online time is hardly directed towards e-participation activities or it's platform (Eränpalo, 2014;Lee & Kim, 2014;Toots, 2019). E-participation initiatives often struggle to garner an audience despite what had been expected when participation initiatives moved online. This lack of engagement can be attributed to many reasons such as a failure in socio-technologically managing these initiatives, lack of interest from citizens to participation, or the disengaging and uninviting design of many e-participation platforms (Lee & Kim, 2014;Toots, 2019). Such observations have called for increased research and study of alternative e-participation technologies that may drive user engagement, such as through gamification (Hassan, 2017, 2018;Thiel, 2015;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). 2.2. Gamified e-participation (Digital) games are complex socio-technological artifacts that are hard to define (Stenros, 2017). They often represent artifacts created for entertainment purposes, where users are faced with artificial challenges, rules for solving those challenges and outcomes from engaging with the challenges (Salen, Tekinbaş, & Zimmerman, 2004). Playing games has been associated with several cognitive, emotional, motivational and social benefits (Granic et al., 2014), as summarized in Table 1. Hence, games, in a form or another, have been utilized in policymaking and related activities for decades so as to harness these benefits of games in non-game contexts (Duke, 1995, 2000, 2011; Mayer, 2009). The policy gaming field, for one field bridging games and governance, looks into, how simulation games can assist in policy planning and better organizational decision-making (Geurts, Duke, & Vermeulen, 2007). The rationale is that games make engagement with said process fun for citizens as well as expand the horizons of policy makers through allowing them to think about different possibilities in the relatively safe and inconsequential space of play. One such application is the early simulation game: METROPOLIS, where the purpose was to both involve officials in city planning and educate other users of the game about city planning (Duke, 1995, 2000). A review of gamebased approaches in urban planning indicates that this space of play is especially effective with civic learning (Klamert & Münster, 2017). Most game-based approaches in policymaking, whether in governmental, e-participation settings (Duke, 1995, 2011;Mayer, 2009) or in larger organizational settings (Geurts et al., 2007;Vesa, Hamari, Harviainen, & Warmelink, 2017) often relay on applications used topdown, to facilitate the making of a certain decision in session-like, timed set-ups. With gamification, this dynamic, arguably, has a higher potential to shift (Hassan & Thibault, 2020;Klamert & Münster, 2017). Gamification, as an emerging game-based approach in democratic/ governmental processes, refers to designing systems, services and processes to provide positive, engaging experiences similar to the experiences good games provide (Hamari, 2019;Landers et al., 2018) - such as intrinsic motivation, playfulness, achievement and sense of community - commonly with the aim of motivating beneficial behaviors (Deterding, 2012, 2015;Huotari & Hamari, 2017). The conceptual difference between gamification and games perhaps stems from that gamification often aims to make (e-participation) activities themselves more game-like, rather than introduce a game artefact as an addition to a standardized e-participation process, although the later can still be observed in gamification practices (Hassan, 2017). Gamification in democratic/governmental processes often requires the redesign or amendment of such processes (Sgueo, 2017, 2019) which might not be seen if a game was being introduced as a mere addition to the processes in question. Many gamification implementations, additionally, often aim to facilitate longitudinal collaborations where the objective is not just to aid in timed decision-making but also to aid with the active analysis, implementation and monitoring of decisions and the maintenance of a crowd base for future engagement needs (Klamert & Münster, 2017;Sgueo, 2019). Gamification can also be implemented by citizens themselves as well as by governments (Hassan & Thibault, 2020;Klamert & Münster, 2017) possibly because gamification can commonly be implemented through relatively less resources than full games require, allowing citizens to actively initiate and maintain gamified, engaging civic communication and activity themselves. Gamification can, nonetheless, vary hugely in how it is implemented. It can be implemented through heavily relying on the introduction of design features unique to games (known as game elements) to existing systems or service (Bogost, 2014;Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011). For example; the application CityCare utilizes a point system, on top of a problem reporting system, to encourage citizens to actively communicate any problems they encounter in their city to administrators (Bousios, Gavalas, & Lambrinos, 2017). In such an implementation, little change to governmental or political processes is observed. Gamification implementations can also extend beyond the digital, employing physical props/hardware such as game controllers, such as in, for example, an application intend to assist law enforcement officers in the regulation of drones (Lindley & Coulton, 2015). Gamification can also be implemented through stories and role-play that immerse players in imagined realities, such as one where the players are mapping a city to facilitate the development of accessible mobility maps while fighting off zombies (Prandi et al., 2017). Additionally, gamification in policy making, is not always intentional, as is seen with the utilization of memes during elections (Haleva-Amir, 2016). Finally, gamification is not necessarily an effort to support existing processes but is also, sometimes, an effort to express opposition of it (Wang & Zhang, 2017). Due to these differences in its implementations, outcomes from gamification can vary and hugely depend on the implemented design and the use context. Koivisto and Hamari (2019), nonetheless, conducted a systematic literature study of research on gamification in various contexts, offering a holistic overview of gamifications' positive and negative outcomes. Table 2 provides a summary of key outcomes from gamification. Gamification, in the context of e-participation – defined in this study as digitally enabled engagement with policymaking - is believed to have the potential to positively impact engagement with democratic governance facilitated through e-participation initiatives (Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago, 2014;Gordon & Baldwin-Philippi, 2014; Raphael, Bachen, Lynn, Baldwin-Philippi, & McKee, 2010). However, while gamification has been introduced to many contexts (see Hamari et al., 2014; Koivisto & Hamari, 2017; Morschheuser, Hamari, et al., 2017;Warmelink et al., 2018 for reviews), gamification practices and their outcomes do not seamlessly transfer across contexts (Asquer, 2014;Thiel, 2016c). Hence, there is a need to develop a knowledge base of gamified e-participation and its outcomes through an examination of the contextualized research on gamification in eL. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 3 participation. Gamification and e-participation are an especially intriguing gamification application context to study as several polarizing facets emerge in their juxtaposition. Policymaking, and governance in general, are commonly connected to serious, persistent and systematic practices, while playing games, and perhaps gamification by extension, have traditionally been regarded a foolhardy activity without instrumental outcomes. Gamified e-participation is also often debated in practice, in terms of whether it can be a means to support potentially coercive forms of governmental paternalism (Ampatzidou et al., 2018; Asquer, 2014) that not only strengthen citizen perception of e-participation as a pretense practice (Losh, 2009) but also endorses compliance with governmental policies that are undesirable or inherently in violation of civil rights in a society (Asquer, 2014). It is hence important to understand how this emerging approach to fostering e-participation has been implemented as well as its outcomes. 3. Methodology Literature review approaches can be divided into four distinct approaches depending on their goal: 1) summarization of knowledge, 2) data aggregation (of empirical studies), 3) explanation building or 4) critical assessment of extant literature (Paré et al., 2015). Whereas the first type of reviews (including narrative, descriptive or scoping reviews) attempts to broadly map and describe a body of literature, data aggregation approaches attempt to aggregate results in a field and specially between specific sets of variables. The explanation building approach attempts to build theory without a descriptive study of the field it reports on and the critical assessment approach attempts to primarily poke holes in existent literature. Given the goal of this review, we adopt a summarization of knowledge approach. More specifically, we aimed to conduct a representative, broad and descriptive review employing a systematic literature search and coding. We follow a concept centric coding strategy according to Webster and Watson (2002) in order to organize the existent literature per publication and per concepts to describe the body of literature quantitatively. Therefore, the process employed by this study proceeded as follows: 1) explorative literature search to map relevant keywords, 2) systematic literature search (of Scopus database), 3) inclusion and exclusion procedures, 4) backward search, 5) forward search, 6) concept-centric coding and analysis of literature, 7) findings reporting (in this study). As Ann Macintosh's framework to characterizing e-participation (Macintosh, 2004) is one of the esteemed frameworks to defining and examining e-participation, we adopted it in examining and coding the concepts emergent in the literature review. Hence, the aspects collected from the literature included: •Full manuscript reference •E-participation application context •Study type: empirical/non-empirical •Research methods employed •E-participation level focus of manuscript: enabling/engaging/empowering •Policymaking stage focus of manuscript: all (undefined by the authors of the reviewed manuscript)//agenda setting/analysis/creation/implementation/monitoring •Type of gamification employed if a gamified tool is reported on •Gamification evaluation approach: qualitative/quantitative/mixed •Results from employing gamification: positive/negative/neutral/ mix/not reported •Psychological and behavioral outcomes from employing gamification •Governmental involvement in the research: yes/no The literature search was carried out in May 2018. The database of Scopus was queried using the query: TITLE-ABS-KEY (gamif*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (gov*) OR TITLE-ABSKEY (poli*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (urban) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (eparticip*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (e-particip*) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “cp”) OR LIMITTO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ch”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ip”). Table 2 Key positive and negative outcomes associated with or caused by gamification (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). Outcomes Description Reference/sample research Cognitive Positive Perceived usefulness of gamification Hassan, Hamari, & Dias, 2019;Rodrigues, Costa, & Oliveira, 2013 Learning/perception of learning Pedro, Lopes, Prates, Vassileva, & Isotani, 2015;Shernoff, Hamari, & Rowe, 2014 Understanding of users of the service Harwood & Garry, 2015; Negative Perceived cognitive load or distractions from the task at hand Andrade, Mizoguchi, & Isotani, 2016;Hanus & Fox, 2015;Harwood & Garry, 2015 Motivational Positive Motivation, engagement Andrade et al., 2016;Hamari, 2017;Xi & Hamari, 2019;Hamari & Koivisto, 2015;Harwood & Garry, 2015;Morschheuser, Hamari, & Maedche, 2019 Negative Lack of significant change to motivation Pedro et al., 2015; Demotivation, avoidance Hamari, Hassan, & Dias, 2018;Hanus & Fox, 2015 Emotional Positive Enjoyment, fun Morschheuser, Maedche, & Walter, 2017,Morschheuser et al., 2019;Rigby, 2015;Rodrigues et al., 2013 Flow, immersion Andrade et al., 2016;Hassan et al., 2019;Hassan, Rantalainen, Xi, Pirkkalainen, & Hamari, 2020; Shernoff et al., 2014 Satisfaction, playfulness, entertainment and other positive emotions Hassan et al., 2019;Hassan, Rantalainen, et al., 2020;Harwood & Garry, 2015;Xi & Hamari, 2019 Negative Anxiety, annoyance Andrade et al., 2016;Harwood & Garry, 2015;Hanus & Fox, 2015 Skepticism Hassan, Morschheuser, Alexan, & Hamari, 2018 Social Positive Perception of sociability and relatedness Hassan et al., 2019;Hassan, Rantalainen, et al., 2020;Hamari & Koivisto, 2015;Xi & Hamari, 2019 Recognition and social influence Hamari & Koivisto, 2015;Harwood & Garry, 2015; Negative Hyper competitiveness, negative social behavior Andrade et al., 2016;Bogost, 2014;Harwood & Garry, 2015;Toda, Valle, & Isotani, 2017 Social anxiety or pressure Toda et al., 2017 Behavioral Positive Behavioral change in different contexts Hamari & Koivisto, 2015;Morschheuser, Hamari, et al., 2017;Warmelink et al., 2018; Participation Hamari, 2017;Harwood & Garry, 2015;Morschheuser, Maedche, & Walter, 2017,Morschheuser et al., 2019;Rodrigues et al., 2013 Enhanced participation quality Cechanowicz, Gutwin, Brownell, & Goodfellow, 2013 Use intentions or acceptance of gamification Hassan et al., 2019;Hassan, Xi, Gurkan, Koivisto, & Hamari, 2020;Hamari & Koivisto, 2015; Rodrigues et al., 2013 Negative Cheating, gaming the system Pedro et al., 2015; Activity related mistakes or low-quality participation Hanus & Fox, 2015;Toda et al., 2017 L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 4 The keyword gamif* includes all forms of the word gamification. Keywords gov*, poli*, urban, eparticip*, e-particip* were used to include literature related to e-participation. We limited the search to journal articles, conference papers, book chapters thus automatically excluding for example conference track introductions. Before deciding on the keywords, exploratory searches of the literature were made to ensure that the keywords covered the relevant literature, in line with the recommendations of Webster and Watson (2002).Fig. 1 depicts the literature search process. The literature search started with the identification of 216 manuscripts, from which 4 were excluded as they were not in English. 2 duplicates were next removed, 3 manuscripts (Opromolla, Volpi, & Medaglia, 2016:Paris & Nepal, 2015;Virkar, 2017) were excluded as they were inaccessible through the libraries of the authors of this work or through contacting the authors of the papers in question through ResearchGate. Next, papers on topics other than gamified e-participation in policymaking were excluded (e.g., papers pertaining to learning, habits formation, health etc.), leaving 58 manuscripts. Following the backwards references of these manuscripts revealed 4 relevant manuscripts. Forward references revealed 4 more. In total 66 manuscripts were included in this literature study. Categorization and coding of the manuscripts included in this literature review study, as presented in Tables 3-6 was done according to what is reported in the reviewed manuscripts as defined by the authors of those manuscripts. 4. Findings, discussion & future directions The findings of the conducted literature review pertain to 4 main veins of discussion according to which this findings and discussion section is structured. Section 4.1 summarizes the research methodologies employed in the reviewed research corpus so as to reflect on the methods employed in the field of gamified participation and its strengths and limitations. Section 4.2 discusses the tracked variables of interest pertaining to e-participation according to the framework by Ann Macintosh (2004) as defined in Section 2.1.Section 4.2, in detail, reflects on e-participation engagement levels, and the policymaking stages and contexts where e-participation has been introduced. Section 4.3 presents the types of gamification identified in the reviewed corpus. Section 4.4 presents a summary of the evaluation approaches employed to evaluate gamification implementations and the reported positive and negative outcomes from gamified e-participation. Section 5, finally, presents the limitations of the conducted literature study and directions for future researchers wishing to expand on our work. 4.1. Methodological approaches Table 3 summarizes the research methodologies employed in the reviewed literature corpus. Most of the reviewed corpus reported on research that employed more than one research method, hence a manuscript can appear more than once in Table 3. The observed utilization of mixed methods in the reviewed literature highlights an attempt towards obtaining findings from various vantage points that can possibly complement each other and accelerate the development of the gamified e-participation field. 41 of the identified manuscripts reported on empirical research while 25 reported on non-empirical research. Accordingly, future researchers are encouraged to contribute theoretical knowledge on gamified e-participation as well as perhaps introduce and contextualize connected theory from other branches of research - such as from psychology and sociology - to build the relatively lacking theoretical base of gamified e-participation. The majority of the reviewed research utilized design, prototyping and implementation methods, most notably in combination with quantitative methods such as log data analyses and surveys. Most of this research reported on experimental implementations that represent proves of concepts used for short periods to prove the validity of an idea. The reviewed research rarely reported on real gamified e-participation tools that are used on-ground, although such tools are discussed in media and grey literature. Future researchers are encouraged to implement longitudinal research, in real-life settings, and to additionally research established tools that are reported on in practice so that we can develop better knowledge of gamified e-participation in practice and on the long run. Most of the reviewed research on gamified e-participation has employed quantitative methods such as surveys and log data analyses, which have reportedly been valuable in reflecting user experiences and preferences (Toots, 2019). Qualitative studies through, for example, focus groups, user interviews and observations are also present in the gamified e-participation research field, however, they are relatively scarcely observed. More qualitative research is perhaps needed as it can reveal nuanced differences in the reception of and outcomes from gamified e-participation that may not be reflected through quantitative approaches. Similarly, the inclusion of important stakeholders in e-participation, beyond citizens and civil servants, such as politicians or NGOs (Sæbø et al., 2008), was rarely observed in the reviewed corpus and corpus mainly reported on, in brief, by two studies (Ampatzidou et al., 2018; Rehm, 2015). The voices of these stakeholders remain relatively unaccounted for, which is of danger as there already are indicators to the existence of a divide in the perception of gamified e-participation across researchers, citizens, government officials and politicians (Ampatzidou et al., 2018;Haleva-Amir, 2016;Hassan, 2017;Wang & Zhang, 2017). Future researchers are encouraged to investigate gamified e-participation with more stakeholders beyond citizen and civil servants so as to account for all voices in the gamified e-participation process. 4.2. E-participation dimensions Table 4 summarizes the tracked variables of interest pertaining to eparticipation according to the framework by Ann Macintosh (2004) as defined in Section 2.1. Papers were coded in the table according to whether they discussed an aim to enable/engage/empower e-participation. The same was done with regards to the decision-making stage to which the work being reviewed pertained as inferred from the manuscript being reviewed. Otherwise, the manuscript would be categorized in a “generic” category. Some of the research addressed more than one stage of decision making or level of e-participation, hence, some papers Fig. 1. Literature search process and outcomes. L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 5 are coded more than once in Table 4. The context of the studies was inferred according to the area to which the reviewed research aimed to contribute. With regards to stages if policymaking that the reviewed corpus aimed to facilitate, 29 of the reviewed manuscripts generically examined gamified e-participation in policymaking with no further specification. Focused research on certain stages of policymaking is present, however comparatively less popular. Focused research is encouraged as it could help ensure the smooth implementation of gamification attuned to the requirements of specific policymaking stages. No research explicitly focused on the “creation” stage of policymaking. This is possibly because policy creation remains a duty exclusive of governmental agencies (Macintosh, 2004). Accordingly, researchers might not have been motivated to research gamified engagement with policy creation as there may not be many benefits in creating citizen engagement with the creation stage of policymaking in the first place. Researchers are encouraged to investigate the potential needs for, if any, requirements of and outcomes from the introduction of gamification to the creation stage of policymaking. Reviews of game-based approaches in the context of urban planning indicate the popularity of these approaches in facilitating citizen involvement in the early stages of policymaking (Klamert & Münster, 2017), Unsurprisingly, and as can be seen in Appendix A, the majority of the research we reviewed on gamification in urban planning, in specific, is indeed mainly concerned with the involvement of citizens in the agenda setting or analysis stages of policymaking. Nonetheless, and in contrast, it appears from our review at large, as well as from a previous review on gamification in smart cities (Opromolla, 2015) that gamification in specific is most popular at the implementation stage of policymaking. These observations can indicate that when it comes to the specific context of urban planning, perhaps citizen involvement is mainly encouraged/investigated at the early stages of policymaking, although citizen involvement is thought to be desirable at later stages of the process as well (Münster et al., 2017). Perhaps this is because the implementation stage and later stages of urban planning mainly require governmental effort, in a top-down manner, to implement urban plans, with relatively little need for citizen input. Nonetheless, the observed differences between the popularity of game -based approaches at the early stages of urban planning compared to the popularity of gamification at the later stages of policymaking at large, reinforces the previous discussion in Section 2.2, highlighting that gamification is perhaps a different game-based approach to civic engagement that is suitable for purposes different from what we have seen with previous game-based approaches. Gamification is an approach most notably popular with behavioral change or to motivate activity (Deterding, 2012;Harviainen & Hassan, 2019;Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). It is hence, especially suited to facilitate implementation of policies where a change in citizen behavior is needed or where active engagement is desirable to facilitate the smooth implementation of a policy. In this stream of research on the implementation stage of policymaking (26 manuscripts), we observe a significant focus on the creation of “good citizens” (Al-Yafi & ElMasri 2016; de Dios Bulos et al., 2014; Kazhamiakin et al., 2016;Williamson, 2017). Largely, the reinforcement of “good” citizen habits that have been deemed good for society is a main focus of most gamification in governmental contexts (Opromolla, 2015; Opromolla et al. 2017). While this direction of research could be of societal benefit, as, for example; encouraging the use of sustainable transport and recycling can be of benefit to a society, it raises concerns as to the ethics of gamification in general, and in eparticipation and governmental contexts in specific (Hassan, 2017; Mahnič 2016). While gamification generally is often utilized to foster “good” habits (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019), it is of danger to utilize it to foster habits in a top-down manner by a (patriarchal) authority in a society, rather than through autonomous, voluntary user engagement. Researchers are encouraged to investigate the practice of creating “good citizens”, and gamification ethics and morality in general and in contexts of power imbalance in specific. In the stream of research on the implementation stage of policymaking, it is interesting to also observe that this is where many of the mixed and negative results from gamified e-participation come (Foxman & Foreille 2014; Tolmie et al., 2014;Poslad et al., 2015; Haleva 2016). This could be merely due to the relatively larger volume of Table 3 Summary of the research methods employed by the reviewed manuscripts. Methods Studies # Design & Prototyping Bianchini et al., 2016a;Bianchini et al., 2016a;Bista et al. 2012, 2014;Bousios et al. 2017;Devisch et al., 2016;Fernandes & Junior 2016;Giangreco et al., 2014;Hu & Chen 2015;Kazhamiakin et al., 2015;Kazhamiakin, Marconi, Martinelli, Pistore & Valetto 2016; Lindley & Coulton 2015;Münster et al., 2017;Nepal et al., 2015;Olszewski et al., 2016;Opromolla 2015;Paris et al., 2018;Poslad et al., 2015;Prandi et al. 2017;Rakhmawati, & Fibrianto 2016;Rehm 2015;Romano et al., 2016;Romano et al., 2018;Semanjski et al., 2016;Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Wei & Anwar 2017 29 Log data analysis Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Bista et al. 2012, 2014;Bousios et al. 2017;Fernandes & Junior 2016;Giangreco et al. 2014; Kazhamiakin et al. 2016, 2015;Nepal et al. 2015;Olszewski et al. 2016;Poslad et al. 2015;Paris et al. 2018;Prandi et al. 2017;Rehm 2015;dos Santos et al., 2015;Semanjski et al. 2016;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015;Thiel 2016b;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Wei & Anwar 2017 21 Surveys (qualitative & quantitative Ampatzidou et al. 2018;Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Bousios et al. 2017;Devisch et al. 2016;Kazhamiakin et al. 2016;Opromolla 2015;Paris et al. 2018;Poslad et al. 2015;Prandi et al. 2017;Rakhmawati, & Fibrianto 2016;Rehm 2015;Romano et al. 2018;Susanto et al., 2017;Thiel 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Thiel et al., 2016 19 Field studies & experiments Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Bousios et al. 2017;Devisch et al. 2016;Fernandes & Junior 2016;Kazhamiakin et al. 2015;2016; Lindley & Coulton 2015;Olszewski et al. 2016;Poslad et al. 2015;Prandi et al. 2017;Rehm 2015;Romano et al. 2018;Thiel 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Thiel et al. 2016;Wei & Anwar 2017 19 Theoretical analysis Al-Yafi & El-Masri 2016;Asquer 2014;Blazhko et al., 2017;Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago 2014;Crowley et al. 2012;Foxman & Forelle 2014;Giangreco et al. 2014;Gnat et al., 2016;Hassan 2017;Klamert & Münster 2017;Mahnič 2014;Oceja & Fernández 2017; Rui et al., 2015:Thiel 2015;Vanolo 2018;Wang & Zhang 2017;Weerawarna et al. 2017;Williamson 2017 18 User focus groups & interviews, Bousios et al. 2017;Brunet et al. 2018;Devisch et al. 2016;Guzman & Clapp 2017;Hu & Chen 2015;Lindley & Coulton 2015;Münster et al. 2017;Paris et al. 2018;Prandi et al. 2017;Rehm 2015;Romano et al. 2016, 2018;Sandoval-Almazan & Valle-Cruz 2017;Thiel 2016b;Thiel & Lehner 2015 15 Design (no implementation) Apostolopoulos et al., 2018;Brunet et al., 2018;Carreira et al., 2017;Crowley et al., 2012;de Dios Bulos et al., 2014;Guzman & Clapp 2017;Martí et al. 2012;Mulyana et al., 2015;Pang et al., 2017;Vogiatzi et al., 2017;Weerawarna et al. 2017 11 Case studies Ampatzidou et al. 2018;Münster et al. 2017;Sandoval-Almazan & Valle-Cruz 2017;dos Santos et al. 2015;Thiel 2016a 5 Qualitative observation Bousios et al. 2017;dos Santos et al. 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015 4 Literature reviews Münster et al. 2017;Opromolla 2015;Opromolla et al., 2015;Thiel 2016c 4 Ethnography Foxman & Forelle 2014;Haleva-Amir 2016;Tolmie et al., 2014 3 Expert interviews Ampatzidou et al. 2018;Rehm 2015 2 L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 6 research conducted on gamification of policy implementation, which, due to sheer volume, identified more negative results than is observed in the relatively less researched stages of policymaking. This can also be due to that most policy implementations require a level of behavioral change and such gamification is difficult to design in general (Hassan, 2017, 2018;Morschheuser, Hassan, Werder, & Hamari, 2018), especially if the change is or involves undesirable activities such as is often the case with exercise, or when the change is not being voluntarily chosen. Policy implementation remains highly connected to a top-down approach, where citizen comply with designer values which may not necessarily be in service of the public good (Harviainen & Hassan, 2019) or align with individual preferences. Such need for compliance with gamification to facilitate policy implementation might erode gamification from the voluntary user engagement needed for its success. Researchers are encouraged to investigate top-down implementations of gamification in e-participation and if they danger voluntary engagement with gamification or coerce compliance through a sugar-coat of gamification. The enabling level of engagement with e-participation, as seen in Table 4, is the least researched level of gamified e-participation, with only 8 manuscripts discussing it. In contrast, other game-based approaches in, for example, urban planning highly utilize visualization techniques, such as, 2D and 3D maps, in enabling participation by informing citizens about their city (Duke, 1995;Sgueo, 2019). It has been suggested that these same informative visualizations can be gamified to employ citizens not only as consultants for urban planning but also as “sensors”, uncovering problems in cities or mapping actual models of their environments into 2D and 3D maps to be used by policy makers in decision making (Klamert & Münster, 2017;Münster et al., 2017). In our literature study, we see that such implementations have already Table 4 Summary of e-participation specific aspects of the reviewed manuscripts as per Ann Macintosh's (2004) framework. Level Studies # All Ampatzidou et al. 2018;Asquer 2014;Carreira et al. 2017;Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago 2014;Guzman & Clapp 2017;Hassan 2017; Klamert & Münster 2017;Mahnič 2014;Oceja & Fernández 2017;Rehm 2015;Thiel 2016c;Vanolo 2018 12 Enabling Blazhko et al. 2017;Fernandes & Junior 2016;Kazhamiakin et al. 2016, 2015;Nepal et al. 2015;Poslad et al. 2015;Semanjski et al. 2016; Williamson 2017 8 Engaging Al-Yafi & El-Masri 2016;Apostolopoulos et al. 2018;Bista et al. 2012, 2014;Bousios et al. 2017;Brunet et al. 2018;Carreira et al. 2017; Crowley et al. 2012;Devisch et al. 2016;de Dios Bulos et al. 2014;Foxman & Forelle 2014;Gnat et al. 2016;Haleva-Amir 2016;Hu & Chen 2015;Lindley & Coulton 2015;Martí et al., 2012;Mulyana et al. 2015;Münster et al. 2017;Olszewski et al. 2016;Opromolla et al. 2015;Pang et al. 2017;Paris et al. 2018;Prandi et al. 2017;Rakhmawati, & Fibrianto 2016;Romano et al. 2016, 2018;Rui et al. 2015;Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015;Susanto et al. 2017;dos Santos et al. 2015;Thiel 2015, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017; Thiel & Lehner 2015;Thiel et al. 2016;Tolmie et al. 2014;Vogiatzi et al. 2017;Weerawarna et al. 2017;Wei & Anwar 2017 41 Empowering Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Münster et al. 2017;Opromolla 2015;Sandoval-Almazan & Valle-Cruz 2017;Thiel 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017;Thiel et al. 2016;Vogiatzi et al. 2017 10 Policy stage Studies # All Ampatzidou et al. 2018;Asquer 2014;Blazhko et al. 2017;Brunet et al. 2018;Carreira et al. 2017;Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago 2014; Devisch et al. 2016;Fernandes & Junior 2016;Giangreco et al. 2014;Gnat et al. 2016;Guzman & Clapp 2017;Hassan 2017;Hu & Chen 2015; Klamert & Münster 2017;Mahnič 2014;Münster et al. 2017;Oceja & Fernández 2017;Rehm 2015;Sandoval-Almazan & Valle-Cruz 2017; Susanto et al. 2017;Thiel 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Thiel et al. 2016;Vanolo 2018;Vogiatzi et al. 2017;Wang & Zhang 2017 29 Agenda setting Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Olszewski et al. 2016;Opromolla et al. 2015;dos Santos et al. 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017 6 Analysis Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Olszewski et al. 2016;Opromolla et al. 2015;dos Santos et al. 2015 5 Creation - 0 Implementation Al-Yafi & El-Masri 2016;Apostolopoulos et al. 2018;Bista et al. 2012, 2014;de Dios Bulos et al. 2014;Foxman & Forelle 2014;Giangreco et al. 2014;Haleva-Amir 2016;Kazhamiakin et al. 2016, 2015;Lindley & Coulton 2015;Martí et al. 2012;Nepal et al. 2015;Olszewski et al. 2016; Pang et al. 2017;Paris et al. 2018;Poslad et al. 2015;Romano et al. 2016, 2018;Rui et al. 2015;Semanjski et al. 2016;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015;Tolmie et al. 2014;Wang & Zhang 2017;Weerawarna et al. 2017;Williamson 2017 26 Monitoring Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Bousios et al. 2017;Crowley et al. 2012;Martí et al. 2012;Mulyana et al. 2015;Opromolla et al. 2015;Prandi et al. 2017;Rakhmawati, & Fibrianto 2016;dos Santos et al. 2015;Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017;Tolmie et al. 2014;Wei & Anwar 2017 15 Context Studies # General / unspecified Al-Yafi & El-Masri 2016;Asquer 2014;Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Coronado Escobar & Vasquez Urriago 2014;Hassan 2017;Hu & Chen 2015;Mahnič 2014;Opromolla et al. 2015;Rehm 2015;Romano et al. 2016;Thiel 2015, 2016b, 2016c;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Tolmie et al. 2014;Vanolo 2018;Vogiatzi et al. 2017;Weerawarna et al. 2017 19 Urban planning Ampatzidou et al. 2018;Brunet et al. 2018;Devisch et al. 2016;de Dios Bulos et al. 2014;Gnat et al. 2016;Klamert & Münster 2017;Münster et al. 2017;Olszewski et al. 2016;Opromolla 2015;Thiel 2016a;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017;Thiel et al. 2016 12 Crowd sensing Apostolopoulos et al. 2018;Bousios et al. 2017;Crowley et al. 2012;Martí et al. 2012;Mulyana et al. 2015;Rakhmawati, & Fibrianto 2016;dos Santos et al. 2015;Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015;Susanto et al. 2017;Wei & Anwar 2017 11 Urban mobility & mapping Kazhamiakin et al. 2016, 2015;Pang et al. 2017;Prandi et al. 2017;Poslad et al. 2015;Rui et al. 2015;Sandoval-Almazan & Valle-Cruz 2017; Semanjski et al. 2016 8 Welfare Bista et al. 2012, 2014;Giangreco et al. 2014;Nepal et al. 2015;Paris et al. 2018 5 Energy Carreira et al. 2017;Guzman & Clapp 2017 2 Civic learning Fernandes & Junior 2016;Oceja & Fernández 2017) 2 Emergency & Law Lindley & Coulton 2015;Romano et al. 2018 2 Elections Foxman & Forelle 2014;Haleva-Amir 2016 2 Education Williamson 2017 1 Opposition Wang & Zhang 2017 1 Open data Blazhko et al. 2017 1 L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 7 been taking place, advancing 2D and 3D modeling in urban planning from tools that enable participation to tools that engage citizens in data gathering and mapping (e.g., Bousios et al., 2017;Pang et al., 2017; Prandi et al., 2017;Romano et al., 2018;Susanto et al., 2017;Wei & Anwar, 2017). Gamification implementations, hence, appear more geared towards engaging citizens beyond the basic first level of enabling participation. There are, however, high needs to ensure the usability of and enjoyable access to governmental information and, for example, documents that are published openly online (Madariaga, Nussbaum, Marañón, Alarcón, & Naranjo, 2019) so that perhaps citizens can become more informed about their communities through these documents, ensuring that the gamified tools enable informed engagement rather than engagement void of reliance on evidence or information, commonly thought to be the root of fake-truth and other mal-practices observed online (see Suiter, 2016). Researchers are encouraged to investigate the gamification of the enabling level of eparticipation to facilitate the creation of well-informed citizens needed in the age of misinformation and fake news. The majority of the reviewed corpus (41 manuscripts) focused on engaging citizens in relatively limited two-way citizen participation, compared to 10 publications that investigated empowerment and equal co-production between citizens and governments. This ratio is surprising as gamification has been projected to be a powerful means to facilitate deeper and more involved partnerships between governments and citizens (Klamert & Münster, 2017;Opromolla, 2015), however, research does not seem to be exploring how gamification can foster Table 5 Summary of types of gamification reported in the reviewed manuscripts. Element Studies # Points Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Bista et al. 2012, 2014;Bousios et al. 2017;Crowley et al. 2012;Foxman & Forelle 2014; Fernandes & Junior 2016;Hu & Chen 2015;Kazhamiakin et al. 2016, 2015;Lindley & Coulton 2015;Martí et al. 2012; Mulyana et al. 2015;Nepal et al. 2015;Olszewski et al. 2016;Opromolla 2015;Pang et al. 2017;Paris et al. 2018;Poslad et al. 2015;Prandi et al. 2017;Rakhmawati, & Fibrianto 2016;Romano et al. 2016, 2018;Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015; Thiel 2016a, 2016b;Thiel and Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Thiel et al. 2016;Weerawarna et al. 2017;Wei & Anwar 2017 32 User rankings, levels & leaderboards Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Bousios et al. 2017;Crowley et al. 2012;Devisch et al. 2016;Fernandes & Junior 2016;Hu & Chen 2015;Kazhamiakin et al. 2016, 2015;Lindley & Coulton 2015;Martí et al. 2012;Mulyana et al. 2015;Pang et al. 2017;Rakhmawati, & Fibrianto 2016;Romano et al. 2016, 2018;Semanjski et al. 2016;Thiel 2016a, 2016b;Thiel and Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Thiel et al. 2016;Vogiatzi et al. 2017;Weerawarna et al. 2017;Wei & Anwar 2017 25 Goals, missions, to-dos, quests, tasks, challenges Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Crowley et al. 2012;Fernandes & Junior 2016;Foxman & Forelle 2014;Kazhamiakin et al. 2016;Olszewski et al. 2016;Opromolla 2015;Pang et al. 2017;Rehm 2015;Romano et al. 2016, 2018;dos Santos et al. 2015;Semanjski et al. 2016;Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015;Thiel 2016a, 2016b;Thiel and Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Thiel et al. 2016;Tolmie et al. 2014;Weerawarna et al. 2017 23 Achievements, badges, medals Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Bista et al. 2012, 2014;Fernandes & Junior 2016;Hu & Chen 2015;Kazhamiakin et al. 2016, 2015;Mulyana et al. 2015;Nepal et al. 2015;Paris et al. 2018;Rakhmawati, & Fibrianto 2016;Rehm 2015;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Vogiatzi et al. 2017;Weerawarna et al. 2017 16 Competition Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Bousios et al. 2017;Devisch et al. 2016;Hu & Chen 2015;Martí et al. 2012;Pang et al. 2017; Rakhmawati, & Fibrianto 2016;Rehm 2015;dos Santos et al. 2015;Susanto et al. 2017;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017;Thiel et al. 2016;Wei & Anwar 2017 14 User profiles Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Devisch et al. 2016;Fernandes & Junior 2016;Mulyana et al. 2015;Prandi et al. 2017;Rehm 2015;Romano et al. 2018;Semanjski et al. 2016;Thiel 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Thiel et al. 2016 14 Location tagging, Devisch et al. 2016;Foxman & Forelle 2014;Martí et al. 2012;Mulyana et al. 2015;Olszewski et al. 2016;Pang et al. 2017; Prandi et al. 2017;Rehm 2015;Thiel 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015 12 Posting, sharing, commenting Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Crowley et al. 2012;Devisch et al. 2016;Martí et al. 2012;Mulyana et al. 2015;Pang et al. 2017;dos Santos et al. 2015;Susanto et al. 2017;Thiel and Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Tolmie et al. 2014 12 Time constraints Crowley et al. 2012;Pang et al. 2017;Rakhmawati, & Fibrianto 2016;Rehm 2015;Thiel 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Thiel et al. 2016;Weerawarna et al. 2017;Wei & Anwar 2017 11 Ideas rankings, likes & leaderboards Bianchini et al. 2016a, 2016b;Crowley et al. 2012;Devisch et al. 2016;Pang et al. 2017;Rehm 2015;dos Santos et al. 2015; Susanto et al. 2017;Thiel and Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel & Lehner 2015 10 Rewards, prizes, incentives Crowley et al. 2012;Foxman & Forelle 2014;Kazhamiakin et al. 2016, 2015;Olszewski et al. 2016;Prandi et al. 2017; Semanjski et al. 2016;Sandoval-Almazan & Valle-Cruz 2017;Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015 10 Cooperation, teams, player communities Crowley et al. 2012;Foxman & Forelle 2014;Olszewski et al. 2016;Pang et al. 2017;Rehm 2015;Semanjski et al. 2016; Thiel & Lehner 2015 7 Progress bars Martí et al. 2012;Rehm 2015;Semanjski et al. 2016;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015;Thiel 2016b;Thiel & Lehner 2015 6 Reputation systems Crowley et al. 2012;Thiel 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Lehner 2015;Thiel et al. 2016) 5 Stories, characters Devisch et al. 2016;Kazhamiakin et al. 2016;Opromolla 2015;Prandi et al. 2017;Tolmie et al. 2014 5 Social media integration Devisch et al. 2016;Foxman & Forelle 2014;Hu & Chen 2015;Rehm 2015;dos Santos et al. 2015 5 Notifications Crowley et al. 2012;Devisch et al. 2016;Olszewski et al. 2016;Rehm 2015 4 Feedback Crowley et al. 2012;Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015 3 Newsfeed Pang et al. 2017;Rehm 2015;Semanjski et al. 2016 3 Punishments Bousios et al. 2017;Hu & Chen 2015;Wei & Anwar 2017 3 Avatars Devisch et al. 2016;Martí et al. 2012 2 AR Devisch et al. 2016;Prandi et al. 2017 2 Forum, chat Devisch et al. 2016;Foxman & Forelle 2014 2 Player roles Devisch et al. 2016;Opromolla 2015 2 Rules Supendi & Prihatmanto 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto 2015 2 Hardware Lindley & Coulton 2015 1 Emoticons Thiel and Fröhlich, 2017 1 Memes Haleva-Amir 2016 1 Downvoting Crowley et al. 2012 1 L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 8 Table 6 Summary of reported positive and negative empirical findings on gamification in E-participation. Positive outcomes from gamification in e-participation Negative outcomes from gamification in e-participation Description Sources Description Sources Cognitive Perceived usefulness of gamification Bousios et al., 2017;dos Santos et al., 2015;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Romano et al., 2018;Brunet et al., 2018 Perceived cognitive load or distractions from the task at hand Tolmie et al., 2014;Brunet et al., 2018 Learning/perception of learning Ampatzidou et al., 2018;Devisch et al., 2016;Olszewski et al., 2016;SandovalAlmazan & Valle-Cruz, 2017 Understanding of users of the service Bista et al., 2012, 2014;dos Santos et al., 2015;Wei & Anwar, 2017 Motivational Motivation, engagement Devisch et al., 2016;Fernandes & junior 2016;Foxman & Forelle, 2014;Haleva-Amir, 2016;Kazhamiakin et al., 2016;Prandi et al.2017;Rehm, 2015;dos Santos et al., 2015; Thiel, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel & Lehner, 2015;Wei & Anwar, 2017;Paris et al., 2018;Romano et al., 2018 Lack of significant change to motivation Thiel et al., 2016;Thiel, 2016a; Demotivation, avoidance Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Emotional Enjoyment, fun Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;Lindley & Coulton, 2015;Prandi et al.2017;Thiel, 2016b;Romano et al., 2018;Brunet et al., 2018 Skepticism Ampatzidou et al., 2018;Bousios et al., 2017; Thiel, 2016b;Brunet et al., 2018 Satisfaction, playfulness, entertainment and other positive emotions Bousios et al., 2017;Haleva-Amir, 2016;Hu & Chen, 2015;dos Santos et al., 2015; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Anxiety, annoyance Prandi et al.2017 Social Perception of sociability and relatedness Haleva-Amir, 2016;Sandoval-Almazan & Valle-Cruz, 2017;Thiel, 2016b;Paris et al., 2018 Hyper competitiveness, negative social behavior Foxman & Forelle, 2014 Recognition and social influence Lindley & Coulton, 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Behavioral Behavioral change in different contexts Foxman & Forelle, 2014;Kazhamiakin et al., 2015;Kazhamiakin et al., 2016;Poslad et al., 2015;Semanjski et al., 2016; Cheating, gaming the system Haleva-Amir, 2016 Participation Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;Bista et al., 2012, 2014;Foxman & Forelle, 2014;Hu & Chen, 2015;Kazhamiakin et al., 2015;Olszewski et al., 2016;Prandi et al.2017; Rakhmawati et al. 2016;Rehm, 2015;dos Santos et al., 2015;Sandoval-Almazan & Valle-Cruz, 2017;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Wei & Anwar, 2017;Paris et al., 2018; Activity related mistakes or low-quality participation Thiel, 2016a;Tolmie et al., 2014 Enhanced participation quality Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;Wei & Anwar, 2017;Paris et al., 2018; Use intentions or acceptance of gamification Lindley & Coulton, 2015;Opromolla, 2015;Prandi et al., 2017;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Romano et al., 2018;Semanjski et al., 2016;Susanto et al., 2017; L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 9 Posting, sharing, commenting Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Lehner, 2015;Tolmie et al., 2014 Crowley et al., 2012;Martí et al., 2012; Mulyana et al., 2015;dos Santos et al., 2015;Susanto et al., 2017 Devisch et al., 2016; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Pang et al., 2017 Rewards, prizes, incentives Crowley et al., 2012;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Olszewski et al., 2016 Foxman & Forelle, 2014 Kazhamiakin et al., 2016, 2015;Prandi et al., 2017; Sandoval-Almazan & ValleCruz, 2017;Semanjski et al., 2016 Cooperation Rehm, 2015;Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012 Olszewski et al., 2016 Foxman & Forelle, 2014 Pang et al., 2017;Semanjski et al., 2016 Social media Hu & Chen, 2015;Rehm, 2015 dos Santos et al., 2015 Devisch et al., 2016 Foxman & Forelle, 2014 Hardware Lindley & Coulton, 2015 Reputation systems Thiel, 2016b;Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012 Thiel, 2016a;Thiel et al., 2016 Feedback Crowley et al., 2012;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 AR Devisch et al., 2016 Prandi et al., 2017 Player roles Devisch et al., 2016; Opromolla, 2015 Forums & chat Devisch et al., 2016 Foxman & Forelle, 2014 Emoticons Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Tech E-participation level (enabling/engaging/empowering) Policy making stage (agenda setting/analysis/creation/implementation monitoring) All Enabling engaging empowering All agenda setting analysis creation implementation monitoring Points Fernandes & Junior, 2016; Kazhamiakin et al., 2016, 2015;Poslad et al., 2015 Bista et al., 2012, 2014;Bousios et al., 2017;Crowley et al., 2012; Hu & Chen, 2015;Lindley & Coulton, 2015;Martí et al., 2012; Mulyana et al., 2015;Nepal et al., 2015;Olszewski et al., 2016;Pang et al., 2017;Paris et al., 2018; Prandi et al., 2017;Rakhmawati & Fibrianto, 2016;Romano et al., 2016, 2018;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Thiel, 2016a; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel et al., 2016;Thiel, 2016b;Thiel & Lehner, 2015;Wei & Anwar, 2017;Weerawarna et al., 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Opromolla, 2015;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017; Thiel et al., 2016 Fernandes & Junior, 2016;Hu & Chen, 2015;Opromolla, 2015;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel et al., 2016;Thiel & Lehner, 2015; Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Bista et al., 2012, 2014; Kazhamiakin et al., 2016, 2015; Lindley & Coulton, 2015;Martí et al., 2012;Nepal et al., 2015; Pang et al., 2017;Paris et al., 2018;Poslad et al., 2015; Romano et al., 2016, 2018; Weerawarna et al., 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Bousios et al., 2017;Crowley et al., 2012;Martí et al., 2012; Mulyana et al., 2015;Prandi et al., 2017;Rakhmawati & Fibrianto, 2016;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Wei & Anwar, 2017 Goals, missions, to-dos, quests, tasks, challenges Rehm, 2015 Fernandes & Junior, 2016; Kazhamiakin et al., 2016; Semanjski et al., 2016; Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012;Foxman & Forelle, 2014;Olszewski et al., 2016;Pang et al., 2017;Romano et al., 2016, 2018;dos Santos et al., 2015;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017; Thiel et al., 2016;Thiel & Lehner, 2015;Tolmie et al., 2014; Weerawarna et al., 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Opromolla, 2015;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017; Thiel et al., 2016 Fernandes & Junior, 2016;Opromolla, 2015;Rehm, 2015; Thiel, 2016a, 2016b; Thiel et al., 2016; Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Olszewski et al., 2016; dos Santos et al., 2015; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Olszewski et al., 2016;dos Santos et al., 2015 Foxman & Forelle, 2014; Kazhamiakin et al., 2016; Olszewski et al., 2016;Pang et al., 2017;Romano et al., 2016, 2018;Semanjski et al., 2016;Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Tolmie et al., 2014; Weerawarna et al., 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Crowley et al., 2012;dos Santos et al., 2015;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Tolmie et al., 2014 L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 16 User profiles Rehm, 2015 Fernandes & Junior, 2016; Semanjski et al., 2016 Devisch et al., 2016;Mulyana et al., 2015;Prandi et al., 2017; Romano et al., 2016, 2018;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel et al., 2016;Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017; Thiel et al., 2016 Devisch et al., 2016; Fernandes & Junior, 2016;Rehm, 2015; Thiel, 2016a, 2016b; Thiel et al., 2016; Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b Romano et al., 2016, 2018; Semanjski et al., 2016 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Mulyana et al., 2015;Prandi et al., 2017;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 User rankings, levels & leaderboards Fernandes & Junior, 2016; Kazhamiakin et al., 2016, 2015; Semanjski et al., 2016 Bousios et al., 2017;Crowley et al., 2012;Devisch et al., 2016; Hu & Chen, 2015;Lindley & Coulton, 2015;Martí et al., 2012; Mulyana et al., 2015;Pang et al., 2017;Rakhmawati & Fibrianto, 2016;Romano et al., 2016, 2018; Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel et al., 2016; Thiel & Lehner, 2015;Vogiatzi et al., 2017;Weerawarna et al., 2017;Wei & Anwar, 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017; Thiel et al., 2016;Vogiatzi et al., 2017 Devisch et al., 2016; Fernandes & Junior, 2016;Hu & Chen, 2015;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel et al., 2016;Thiel & Lehner, 2015; Vogiatzi et al., 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b Kazhamiakin et al., 2016, 2015; Lindley & Coulton, 2015;Martí et al., 2012;Pang et al., 2017; Romano et al., 2016, 2018; Semanjski et al., 2016; Weerawarna et al., 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Bousios et al., 2017;Crowley et al., 2012;Mulyana et al., 2015; Rakhmawati & Fibrianto, 2016; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Wei & Anwar, 2017 Rules Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015; Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Achievements, badges, medals Rehm, 2015 Fernandes & Junior, 2016; Kazhamiakin et al., 2016, 2015 Bista et al., 2012, 2014;Hu & Chen, 2015;Mulyana et al., 2015; Nepal et al., 2015;Paris et al., 2018;Rakhmawati & Fibrianto, 2016;Thiel & Lehner, 2015; Vogiatzi et al., 2017;Weerawarna et al., 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Vogiatzi et al., 2017 Fernandes & Junior, 2016;Hu & Chen, 2015;Rehm, 2015; Thiel & Lehner, 2015;Vogiatzi et al., 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b Bista et al., 2012, 2014; Kazhamiakin et al., 2016, 2015; Nepal et al., 2015;Paris et al., 2018;Weerawarna et al., 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Mulyana et al., 2015; Rakhmawati & Fibrianto, 2016 Punishments Bousios et al., 2017;Hu & Chen, 2015;Wei & Anwar, 2017 Hu & Chen, 2015 Bousios et al., 2017;Wei & Anwar, 2017 Competition Rehm, 2015 Bousios et al., 2017;Devisch et al., 2016;Hu & Chen, 2015; Martí et al., 2012;Pang et al., 2017;Rakhmawati & Fibrianto, 2016;dos Santos et al., 2015; Susanto et al., 2017;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel et al., 2016; Wei & Anwar, 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017; Thiel et al., 2016 Devisch et al., 2016; Hu & Chen, 2015; Rehm, 2015;Susanto et al., 2017;Thiel et al., 2016 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;dos Santos et al., 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;dos Santos et al., 2015 Martí et al., 2012;Pang et al., 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Bousios et al., 2017;Rakhmawati & Fibrianto, 2016;dos Santos et al., 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Wei & Anwar, 2017 Location tagging, Rehm, 2015 Devisch et al., 2016;Foxman & Forelle, 2014;Martí et al., 2012; Mulyana et al., 2015;Olszewski et al., 2016;Pang et al., 2017; Prandi et al., 2017;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017; Thiel, 2016a, 2016b Devisch et al., 2016; Rehm, 2015;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Olszewski et al., 2016; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Olszewski et al., 2016 Foxman & Forelle, 2014;Martí et al., 2012;Olszewski et al., 2016;Pang et al., 2017 Mulyana et al., 2015;Prandi et al., 2017;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Time constraints Rehm, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012;Pang et al., 2017;Rakhmawati & Fibrianto, 2016;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel et al., 2016;Thiel & Lehner, 2015; Weerawarna et al., 2017;Wei & Anwar, 2017 Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017; Thiel et al., 2016; Rehm, 2015;Thiel, 2016a, 2016bThiel et al., 2016;Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Pang et al., 2017;Weerawarna et al., 2017 Crowley et al., 2012;Rakhmawati & Fibrianto, 2016;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Wei & Anwar, 2017 Ideas rankings, likes & leaderboards Rehm, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012;Devisch et al., 2016;Pang et al., 2017;dos Santos et al., 2015;Susanto et al., 2017;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017; Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Devisch et al., 2016; Rehm, 2015;Susanto et al., 2017;Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;dos Santos et al., 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;dos Santos et al., 2015 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Crowley et al., 2012;dos Santos et al., 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 17 Progress bars Rehm, 2015 Semanjski et al., 2016; Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Martí et al., 2012;Thiel, 2016b; Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Thiel, 2016b Rehm, 2015;Thiel, 2016b;Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Martí et al., 2012;Semanjski et al., 2016;Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Stories, characters Kazhamiakin et al., 2016 Devisch et al., 2016;Prandi et al., 2017;Tolmie et al., 2014 Opromolla, 2015 Devisch et al., 2016; Opromolla, 2015 Kazhamiakin et al., 2016; Tolmie et al., 2014 Prandi et al., 2017;Tolmie et al., 2014 Notifications Rehm, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012;Devisch et al., 2016;Olszewski et al., 2016 Devisch et al., 2016; Rehm, 2015 Olszewski et al., 2016 Olszewski et al., 2016 Olszewski et al., 2016 Crowley et al., 2012 Newsfeed Rehm, 2015 Pang et al., 2017 Rehm, 2015 Pang et al., 2017 Avatars Devisch et al., 2016;Martí et al., 2012 Devisch et al., 2016 Martí et al., 2012 Memes Haleva-Amir, 2016 Haleva-Amir, 2016 Downvoting Crowley et al., 2012 Crowley et al., 2012 Posting, sharing, commenting Crowley et al., 2012;Devisch et al., 2016;Martí et al., 2012; Mulyana et al., 2015;Pang et al., 2017;dos Santos et al., 2015; Susanto et al., 2017;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Thiel & Lehner, 2015;Tolmie et al., 2014 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Devisch et al., 2016; Susanto et al., 2017; Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b Martí et al., 2012;Pang et al., 2017;Tolmie et al., 2014 Bianchini et al., 2016a, 2016b; Crowley et al., 2012;Mulyana et al., 2015;Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017;Tolmie et al., 2014 Rewards, prizes, incentives Kazhamiakin et al., 2016, 2015; Semanjski et al., 2016; Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012;Foxman & Forelle, 2014;Olszewski et al., 2016;Prandi et al., 2017;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015 SandovalAlmazan & Valle-Cruz, 2017 Sandoval-Almazan & Valle-Cruz, 2017 Olszewski et al., 2016 Olszewski et al., 2016 Foxman & Forelle, 2014; Kazhamiakin et al., 2016, 2015; Olszewski et al., 2016; Semanjski et al., 2016;Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012;Prandi et al., 2017;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Cooperation Rehm, 2015 Semanjski et al., 2016 Crowley et al., 2012;Foxman & Forelle, 2014;Olszewski et al., 2016;Pang et al., 2017;Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Rehm, 2015;Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Olszewski et al., 2016 Olszewski et al., 2016 Foxman & Forelle, 2014; Olszewski et al., 2016;Pang et al., 2017;Semanjski et al., 2016 Crowley et al., 2012 Social media Rehm, 2015 Devisch et al., 2016;Foxman & Forelle, 2014;Hu & Chen, 2015; dos Santos et al., 2015 Devisch et al., 2016; Hu & Chen, 2015; Rehm, 2015 dos Santos et al., 2015 dos Santos et al., 2015 Foxman & Forelle, 2014 dos Santos et al., 2015 Hardware Lindley & Coulton, 2015 Lindley & Coulton, 2015 Reputation systems Crowley et al., 2012;Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel et al., 2016; Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Thiel, 2016a, 2016b;Thiel et al., 2016 Thiel, 2016a, 2016b; Thiel et al., 2016; Thiel & Lehner, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012 Feedback Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 Crowley et al., 2012;Supendi & Prihatmanto, 2015;Supriadi & Prihatmanto, 2015 AR Devisch et al., 2016;Prandi et al., 2017 Devisch et al., 2016 Prandi et al., 2017 Player roles Devisch et al., 2016 Opromolla, 2015 Devisch et al., 2016; Opromolla, 2015 Forums & chat Foxman & Forelle, 2014;Devisch et al., 2016 Devisch et al., 2016 Foxman & Forelle, 2014 Emoticons Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 Thiel & Fröhlich, 2017 L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 18 References Adachi, P. J., & Willoughby, T. (2013). More than just fun and games: The longitudinal relationships between strategic video games, selfreported problem solving skills, and academic grades. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1041–1052. Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 217–237. Alharbi, A., Kang, K., & Hawryszkiewycz, I. (2015). The influence of trust and subjective norms on citizens’ intentions to engage in e-participation on e-government websites. Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 2011, 1–12. Al-Yafi, K., & El-Masri, M. (2016). Gamification of e-government services: A potential transformation gamification of e-government services: A discussion of potential transformation. Proceedings of the 22nd Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS2016: Surfing the IT innovation wave). Ampatzidou, C., Gugerell, K., Constantinescu, T., Devisch, O., Jauschneg, M., & Berger, M. (2018). All work and no play? Facilitating serious games and gamified applications in participatory urban planning and governance. Urban Planning, 3(1), 34–46. Andrade, F. R., Mizoguchi, R., & Isotani, S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of gamification. Proceedings of the International conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 176–186). Cham: Springer. Apostolopoulos, K., Geli, M., Petrelli, P., Potsiou, C., & Ioannidis, C. (2018). A new model for cadastral surveying using crowdsourcing. Survey Review, 50(359), 122–133. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. Asquer, A. (2014). Not just videogames: gamification and its potential application to public services. digital public administration and E-government. In E. F. Halpin (Ed.). Digital public administration and E-government in developing nations: Policy and practice (pp. 146–165). IGI Global. Bavelier, D., Achtman, R. L., Mani, M., & Föcker, J. (2012). Neural bases of selective attention in action video game players. Vision Research, 61, 132–143. Bianchini, D., Fogli, D., & Ragazzi, D. (2016a). TAB sharing: A gamified tool for e-participation. Proceedings of the international working conference on advanced visual interfaces - AVI ’16 (pp. 294–295). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. Bianchini, D., Fogli, D., & Ragazzi, D. (2016b). Promoting citizen participation through gamification. Proceedings of the 9th nordic conference on human-computer interaction - NordiCHI ‘16 (pp. 1–4). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558. Bista, S. K., Nepal, S., Colineau, N., & Paris, C. (2012). Using gamification in an online community. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on collaborative computing: networking, applications and worksharing (CollaborateCom) (pp. 611–618). IEEE. Bista, S. K., Nepal, S., Paris, C., & Colineau, N. (2014). Gamification for online communities: A case study for delivering government services. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 2325(2) (1441002-1-1441002–1441025). Blazhko, O., Luhova, T., Melnik, S., & Ruvinska, V. (2017). Communication model of open government data gamification based on Ukrainian websites. Proceedings of the 4th experiment@international conference (exp.at’17) (pp. 181–186). IEEE. Bogost, I. (2014). Why gamification is bullshit. In S. P. Walz, & S. Deterding (Eds.). The gameful world (pp. 65–79). MIT press. Bousios, A., Gavalas, D., & Lambrinos, L. (2017). CityCare: Crowdsourcing daily life issue reports in smart cities. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE symposium on computers and communications (ISCC) (pp. 266–271). IEEE. Brunet, L., Tuomisaari, J., Lavorel, S., Crouzat, E., Bierry, A., Peltola, T., & Arpin, I. (2018). Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational. Land Use Policy, 72, 27–34. Carreira, P., Mendes, G., Barroca, B., Amaral, V., Honkapuro, S., & Prada, R. (2017). Energy behavior engagement in smart urban environments. Energy Procedia, 142, 2080–2088. Cechanowicz, J., Gutwin, C., Brownell, B., & Goodfellow, L. (2013). Effects of gamification on participation and data quality in a real-world market research domain. Proceedings of the first international conference on gameful design, research, and applications (pp. 58–65). . Cernuzzi, L., & Pane, J. (2014). Toward open government in Paraguay. IT Professional, 16(5), 62–64. Conge, P. J. (1988). The concept of political participation: Toward a definition. Comparative Politics, 20(2), 241–249. Coronado Escobar, J. E., & Vasquez Urriago, A. R. (2014). Gamification: An effective mechanism to promote civic engagement and generate trust? Proceedings of the 8th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance - ICEGOV ‘14 (pp. 514–515). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. Crowley, D. N., Breslin, J. G., & Corcoran, P. (2012). Gamification of citizen sensing through mobile social reporting. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE international games innovation conference (IGIC) (pp. 1–5). IEEE. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass. Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14–17. Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design. Human–Computer Interaction, 30(3–4), 294–335. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9–15). ACM. Devisch, O., Poplin, A., & Sofronie, S. (2016). The gamification of civic participation: Two experiments in improving the skills of citizens to reflect collectively on spatial issues. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(2), 81–102. de Dios Bulos, R., Delfino, N. M., & Rivera, J. P. R. (2014). Exploring data mining and gamification as tools for poverty analysis and policy formulation: A methodological framework. Journal of Economic and Economic Education Research, 15(3), 25–37. dos Santos, A. C., Zambalde, A. L., Veroneze, R. B., Botelho, G. A., & de Souza Bermejo, P. H. (2015). Open innovation and social participation: A case study in public security in Brazil. International conference on electronic government and the information systems perspective (pp. 163–176). Cham: Springer. Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., ... Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363(6432), 1144–1146. Duke, R. D. (1995). Gaming: An emergent discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 26(4), 426–439. Duke, R. D. (2000). A personal perspective on the evolution of gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 31(1), 79–85. Duke, R. D. (2011). Origin and evolution of policy simulation: A personal journey. Simulation & Gaming, 42(3), 342–358. Eränpalo, T. (2014). Exploring young People’s civic identities through gamification: A case study of Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian adolescents playing a social simulation game. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 13(2), 104–120. Ewoldsen, D. R., Eno, C. A., Okdie, B. M., Velez, J. A., Guadagno, R. E., & DeCoster, J. (2012). Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 277–280. Fernandes, F. T., & Junior, P. T. A. (2016). Gamification aspects in the context of electronic government and education: A case study. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on HCI in business, government, and organizations, HCIBGO 2016 (pp. 140– 150). Toronto; Canada: Springer, Cham. Foxman, M., & Forelle, M. (2014). Electing to play: MTV’s fantasy election and changes in political engagement through gameplay. Games and Culture, 9(6), 454–467. Fröding, B., & Peterson, M. (2013). Why computer games can be essential for human flourishing. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 11(2), 81–91. Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M., Ming, L. K., ... Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 752–763. Geurts, J. L., Duke, R. D., & Vermeulen, P. A. (2007). Policy gaming for strategy and change. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 535–558. Giangreco, E., Marasso, L., Chetta, V., Fortunato, L., & Perlangeli, C. (2014). Modeling tools of service value networks to support social innovation in a Smart City. Innovation and the Public Sector, 21, 206–215. Gnat, M., Leszek, K., & Olszewski, R. (2016). The use of geoinformation technology, augmented reality and gamification in the urban modeling process. Proceedings of the international conference on computational science and its applications (pp. 484–496). Cham: Springer. Gordon, E., & Baldwin-Philippi, J. (2014). Playful civic learning: Enabling reflection and lateral trust in game-based public participation. International Journal of Communication, 8(1), 759–786. Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78. Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2012). Learning, attentional control, and action video games. Current Biology, 22, 197–206. Gurstein, M. (2003). Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the digital divide. First Monday, 8(12). Guzman, L. I., & Clapp, A. (2017). Applying personal carbon trading: A proposed “carbon, health and savings System”for British Columbia, Canada. Climate Policy, 17(5), 616–633. Haleva-Amir, S. (2016). Not all about that Facebook: Political campaigns and civic engagement in the 2015 elections. Israel Affairs, 22(3–4), 711–726. Hamari, J. (2017). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on effects of gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 469–478 (Impact factor 3.435 | JUFO 2). Hamari, J. (2019). Gamification. In G. Ritzer, & C. Rojek (Eds.). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of sociology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hamari, J., Hassan, L., & Dias, A. (2018). Gamification, quantified-self or social networking? Matching users’ goals with motivational technology. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. 28(1). Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). “Working out for likes”: An empirical study on social influence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 333–347. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?–a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii international conference onsystem sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3025–3034). Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059. Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161. Harviainen, J. T., & Hassan, L. (2019). Governmental service gamification: Central principles. International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy (IJIDE), 10(3), 1–12. Harwood, T., & Garry, T. (2015). An investigation into gamification as a customer engagement experience environment. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2015-0045. Hassan, L. (2017). Governments should play games: Towards a framework for the gamification of civic engagement platforms. Simulation and Gaming, 48(2), 249–267. Hassan, L. (2018). Means to gameful ends: How should gamification be designed? Hanken L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 19 School of Economics. Hassan, L., Hamari, J., & Dias, A. (2019). How motivational feedback increases user's benefits and continued use: A study on gamification, quantified-self and social networking. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 151–162. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ij. Hassan, L., Morschheuser, B., Alexan, N., & Hamari, J. (2018). First-hand experience of why gamification projects fail and what could be done about it. Proceedings of the 2nd international GamiFIN conference, GamiFIN 2018. CEUR-WS. Hassan, L., Rantalainen, J., Xi, N., Pirkkalainen, H., & Hamari, J. (2020). The relationship between player types and gamification feature preferences. Proceedings of the 4th international GamiFIN conference (GamiFIN2020), Levi, Finland. Hassan, L., & Thibault, M. (2020). Critical playable cities. In N. Arton (Ed.). Making smart cities more playable. Gaming media and social effects. Singapore: Springer. Hassan, L., Xi, N., Gurkan, B., Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2020). Gameful self-regulation: A study on how gamified self-tracking features evoke gameful experiences. Proceedings of 53rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’53), Hawaii, United States, January 7–10 2020. Hu, S. C., & Chen, I. C. (2015, June). A gamified online forum inspiring group intelligence distillation for policy making. International conference in swarm intelligence (pp. 423– 430). Cham: Springer. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1), 21–31. Hutchinson, E. (2015). Time spent online doubles in a decade - Ofcom. Retrieved February 1, 2016, from https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/ media-releases/2015/time-spent-online-doubles-in-a-decade. Islam, M. S. (2008). Towards a sustainable e-participation implementation model. European Journal of EPractice, 5(10), 1–12. Jackson, L. A., Witt, E. A., Games, A. I., Fitzgerald, H. E., von Eye, A., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the children and technology project. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 370–376. Kazhamiakin, R., Marconi, A., Martinelli, A., Pistore, M., & Valetto, G. (2016, September). A gamification framework for the long-term engagement of smart citizens. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE international smart cities conference (ISC2) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. Kazhamiakin, R., Marconi, A., Perillo, M., Pistore, M., Valetto, G., Piras, L., ... Perri, N. (2015). Using gamification to incentivize sustainable urban mobility. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE first international smart cities conference (ISC2) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. Klamert, K., & Münster, S. (2017). Child’s play-a literature-based survey on gamified tools and methods for fostering public participation in urban planning. Proceedings of the international conference on electronic participation (pp. 24–33). Cham: Springer. Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191–210. Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., Collmus, A. B., & Armstrong, M. B. (2018). Gamification science, its history and future: Definitions and a research agenda. Simulation & Gaming, 49(3), 315–337. Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2014). Active citizen e-participation in local governance: Do individual social capital and e-participation management matter? Proceedings of 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS47) (pp. 2044–2053). . Lee-Geiller, S., & Lee, T. (2019). Using government websites to enhance democratic Egovernance: A conceptual model for evaluation. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 208–225. Lehdonvirta, V., Kässi, O., Hjorth, I., Barnard, H., & Graham, M. (2019). The global platform economy: A new offshoring institution enabling emerging-economy microproviders. Journal of Management, 45(2), 567–599. Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A. R., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games, and civics: Teens’ gaming experiences are diverse and include significant social interaction and civic engagement. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1–76. Retrieved from the Pew Internet & American Life Project website http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Teens-Video-Games-and-Civics.aspx. Lindley, J., & Coulton, P. (2015, October). Game of drones. Proceedings of the 2015 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play (pp. 613–618). ACM. Losh, L. (2009). Virtualpolitik: An electronic history of government media-making in a time of war, scandal, disaster, miscommunication, and mistakes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing E-participation in policy-making. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-37) (pp. 117–126). IEEE. Madariaga, L., Nussbaum, M., Marañón, F., Alarcón, C., & Naranjo, M. A. (2019). User experience of government documents: A framework for informing design decisions. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 179–195. Mahnič, N. (2014). Gamification of politics: Start a new game!. Teorija in praksa, 51(1). Martí, I. G., Rodríguez, L. E., Benedito, M., Trilles, S., Beltrán, A., Díaz, L., & Huerta, J. (2012). Mobile application for noise pollution monitoring through gamification techniques. Proceedings of the international conference on entertainment computing (pp. 562–571). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Mayer, I. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation and Gaming, 40(6), 825–862. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York, NY: Penguin Press. Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Maedche, A. (2017). Gamified crowdsourcing: Conceptualization, literature review, and future agenda. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 106, 26–43. Morschheuser, B., Hamari, J., & Maedche, A. (2019). Cooperation or competition – When do people contribute more? A field experiment on gamification of crowdsourcing. International Journal of Human-Computers Studies, 127, 7–24. Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2018). How to design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software. Information and Software Technology, 95, 219–237. Morschheuser, B., Maedche, A., & Walter, D. (2017). Designing cooperative gamification: Conceptualization and prototypical implementation. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing - CSCW ‘17 (pp. 2410–2421). . Mulyana, A., Hindersah, H., & Prihatmanto, A. S. (2015). Gamification design of traffic data collection through social reporting. Proceedings of the 2015 4th international conference on interactive digital media, ICIDM 2015 (pp. 1–4). . Münster, S., Georgi, C., Heijne, K., Klamert, K., Noennig, J. R., Pump, M., ... Van Der Meer, H. (2017). How to involve inhabitants in urban design planning by using digital tools? An overview on a state of the art, key challenges and promising approaches. Procedia Computer Science, 112, 2391–2405. Nepal, S., Paris, C., & Bista, S. (2015). Gamification on the social web. In C. Paris, & D. Georgakopoulos (Eds.). Social media for government services. Cham: Springer. Oceja, J., & Fernández, N. G. (2017). Classification of game experiences to promote civic competence in the context of informal learning. Proceedings of the 11th European conference on game-based learning (pp. 480–487). Academic Conferences International Limited. Olszewski, R., Turek, A., & Łączyński, M. (2016). Urban gamification as a source of information for spatial data analysis and predictive participatory modelling of a City’s development. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on data management technologies and applications. SCITEPRESS. Opromolla, A. (2015). “Gamified” social dynamics in the interactive systems as a possible solution for increasing co-design of emerging services in smart territories. Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the Italian SIGCHI chapter (pp. 46–57). (CEUR workshop proceedings). Opromolla, A., Ingrosso, A., Volpi, V., Medaglia, C. M., Palatucci, M., & Pazzola, M. (2015). Gamification in a Smart City context. An analysis and a proposal for its application in co-design processes. Proceedings of the international conference on games and learning alliance (pp. 73–82). . Opromolla, A., Volpi, V., & Medaglia, C. M. (2016). Playful interactions for the Citizens’ engagement. The musical language as a possible application. Proceedings of the international conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 71–76). Cham: Springer. Pang, C., Pan, R., Wong, S., Neustaedter, C., & Wu, Y. (2017). City explorer: Gamifying public transit trips while exploring the City. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems - CHI EA ‘17 (pp. 2825– 2832). . Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199. Paris, C., & Nepal, S. (2015). Next Step: An online community for delivering human services. Social media for government services (pp. 169–196). Cham: Springer. Paris, C., Nepal, S., & Dennett, A. (2018). A government-run online community to support recipients of welfare payments. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 27(2), 1850001. Pedro, L. Z., Lopes, A. M., Prates, B. G., Vassileva, J., & Isotani, S. (2015). Does gamification work for boys and girls? An exploratory study with a virtual learning environment. Proceedings of the 30th annual ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 214–219). . Phang, C. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008). A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 128–132. Poslad, S., Ma, A., Wang, Z., & Mei, H. (2015). Using a Smart City IoT to incentivise and target shifts in mobility behaviour—Is it a piece of pie? Sensors, 15(6), 13069–13096. Prandi, C., Roccetti, M., Salomoni, P., Nisi, V., Nunes, N. J., & Tools Appl, M. (2017). Fighting exclusion: A multimedia mobile app with zombies and maps as a medium for civic engagement and design. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76(4), 4951–4979. Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Raihani, N. J. (2013). Nudge politics: Efficacy and ethics. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 972. Rakhmawati, N. A., & Fibrianto, B. (2016). Designing a gamification for monitoring Surabaya City development. Proceedings of the 2016 international conference on information & communication technology and systems (ICTS) (pp. 262–265). IEEE. Raphael, C., Bachen, C., Lynn, K.-M., Baldwin-Philippi, J., & McKee, K. A. (2010). Games for civic learning: A conceptual framework and agenda for research and design. Games and Culture, 5(2), 199–235. Rehm, S. (2015). DoGood: A gamified mobile app to promote civic engagement. Doctoral dissertationLudwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen. Reilhac, M. (2013). The gamification of life. (In the Pixel Report). Rigby, C. S. (2015). Gamification and motivation. In S. P. Walz, & S. Deterding (Eds.). The Gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 113–138). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. Rodrigues, L. F., Costa, C. J., & Oliveira, A. (2013). The adoption of gamification in ebanking. Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on information systems and design of communication (pp. 47–55). . Romano, M., Díaz, P., & Aedo, I. (2016). Emergency management and smart cities: Civic engagement through gamification. Proceedings of the international conference on information systems for crisis response and management in mediterranean countries (pp. 3– 14). Cham: Springer. Romano, M., Díaz, P., & Aedo, I. (2018). A gamified platform for civic engagement in early warning. Proceedings of the XIX international conference on human computer interaction. ACM. Rui, A. S., Plewe, D. A., & Röcker, C. (2015). Themed passenger carriages: Promoting commuters’ happiness on rapid transit systems through ambient and aesthetic intelligence. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2103–2109. Russoniello, C. V., O’Brien, K., & Parks, J. M. (2009). EEG, HRV and psychological correlates while playing Bejeweled II: A randomized controlled study. In B. K. L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 20 Wiederhold, & G. Riva (Vol. Eds.), Annual review of cybertherapy and telemedicine 2009: Advance technologies in the behavioral, social and neurosciences.Vol. 7.Annual review of cybertherapy and telemedicine 2009: Advance technologies in the behavioral, social and neurosciences (pp. 189–192). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Interactive Media Institute and IOS Press. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 347–363. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Skiftenes Flak, L. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428. Salen, K., Tekinbaş, K. S., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT press. Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Valle-Cruz, D. (2017). Open innovation, living labs and public officials. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance - ICEGOV ’17 (pp. 260–265). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. Semanjski, I., Lopez Aguirre, A., De Mol, J., & Gautama, S. (2016). Policy 2.0 platform for mobile sensing and incentivized targeted shifts in mobility behavior. Sensors, 16(7), 1035. Sgueo, G. (2017). Gamification, participatory democracy and engaged public (S). University of Vienna” Activation–Self-Management–Overload Political Participation beyond the Post-democratic Turn. Sgueo, G. (2018). A discussion on gamified digital advocacy. Proceedings of the international workshop on the future of law: Technology, innovation and access to justiceBerlin: Humboldt University. Sgueo, G. (2019). Is gamification making cities smarter? Ius Publicum Network Review. Shernoff, D. J., Hamari, J., & Rowe, E. (2014). Measuring flow in educational games & gamified learning environments. Proceedings of EDMedia world conference on educational media and technology, Tampere, Finland. Sherry, J. L. (2004). Flow and media enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14, 328–347. Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 530–543. Stenros, J. (2017). The game definition game: A review. Games and Culture, 12(6), 499–520. Suiter, J. (2016). Post-truth politics. Political Insight, 7(3), 25–27. Supendi, K., & Prihatmanto, A. S. (2015). Design and implementation of the assessment of public officers web base with gamification method. Proceedings of the 2015 4 th international conference on interactive digital media, ICIDM 2015 (pp. 1–6). Bandung, Indonesia: IEEE. Supriadi, I., & Prihatmanto, A. S. (2015). Design and implementation of Indonesia united portal using crowdsourcing approach for supporting conservation and monitoring of endangered species. Proceedings of the 4 th international conference on interactive digital media (ICIDM) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. Susanto, T. D., Diani, M. M., & Hafidz, I. (2017). User acceptance of e-government citizen report system (a case study of city113 app). Procedia Computer Science, 124, 560–568. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2), 175–179. Thiel, S. K. (2015). Gamified participation: Investigating the influence of game elements in civic engagement tools. Adjunct proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing and proceedings of the 2015 ACM international symposium on wearable computers (pp. 527–532). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. Thiel, S. K. (2016a). Gamers in public participation: A boon or bane? Influence of attitudes in gamified participation platforms. Proceedings of the 15 th international conference on Mobile and ubiquitous multimedia – MUM ‘16 (pp. 229–240). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. Thiel, S. K. (2016b). Reward-based vs. social gamification: Exploring effectiveness of Gamefulness in public participation. Proceedings of the 9 th Nordic conference on humancomputer interaction – NordiCHI ‘16 (pp. 104). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. Thiel, S. K. (2016c). A review of introducing game elements to e-participation. Proceedings of the 6 th international conference for E-democracy and open government, CeDEM 2016 (pp. 3–9). IEEE. Thiel, S. K., & Fröhlich, P. (2017). Gamification as motivation to engage in location-based public participation? Progress in location-based services 2016 (pp. 399–421). Cham: Springer. Thiel, S. K., & Lehner, U. (2015). Exploring the effects of game elements in m-participation. Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI conference (pp. 65–73). ACM. Thiel, S. K., Reisinger, M., & Röderer, K. (2016). I’m too old for this!: Influence of age on perception of gamified public participation. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia - MUM ‘16 (pp. 343–346). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. Toda, A. M., Valle, P. H., & Isotani, S. (2017). The dark side of gamification: An overview of negative effects of gamification in education. Proceedings of the researcher links workshop: higher education for all (pp. 143–156). Cham: Springer. Tolmie, P., Chamberlain, A., & Benford, S. (2014). Designing for reportability: Sustainable gamification, public engagement, and promoting environmental debate. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(7), 1763–1774. Toots, M. (2019). Why E-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia's Osale. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 546–559. Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 352–402. Vanolo, A. (2018). Cities and the politics of gamification. Cities, 74, 320–326. Ventura, M., Shute, V., & Zhao, W. (2013). The relationship between video game use and a performance-based measure of persistence. Computers & Education, 60, 52–58. Vesa, M., Hamari, J., Harviainen, J. T., & Warmelink, H. (2017). Computer games and organization studies. Organization Studies, 38(2), 273–284. Virkar, S. (2017). The Games people play: Exploring digital addiction within the context of the gamification of ICT project Design for Public Sector Administration Reform. In I. M. Association (Ed.). Gaming and technology addiction: Breakthroughs in research and practice (pp. 166–194). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Vogiatzi, M., Keratidis, C., Schinas, M., Diplaris, S., Yümlü, S., Forbes, P., ... Symeonidou, M. (2017). The STEP project: Societal and political engagement of young people in environmental issues. Proceedings of the international conference on internet scienceCham: Springer148–156. Wang, D., & Zhang, X. (2017). Fansubbing in China. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 29(2), 301–318. Warmelink, H., Koivisto, J., Mayer, I., Vesa, M., & Hamari, J. (2018). Gamification of the work floor: A literature review of gamifying production and logistics operations. Proceedings of the 51th annual hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS51). Hawaii, USA (pp. 1108–1117). . Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2) (xiii–xxiii). Weerawarna, N. T., Abeysiri, L., & Madhushan, A. (2017). “GAIMS” — Gamified aid information management system to connect donor and requester. Proceedings of the 6th national conference on technology and management (NCTM) (pp. 105–110). IEEE. Wei, L. K., & Anwar, T. (2017). Analysis of motivation approach in mobile crowdsensing application: Specialize on public transportation domain. Proceedings of the 6th ICT international student project conference (ICT-ISPC) (pp. 1–4). IEEE. Williamson, B. (2017). Decoding ClassDojo: Psycho-policy, social-emotional learning and persuasive educational technologies. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(4), 440–453. Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2019). Does gamification satisfy needs? A study on the relationship between gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 210–221. Lobna Hassan (PhD) is a postdoctoral researcher at the Gamification Group, University of Turku and Tampere University, Finland. Lobna researches gamification, motivational technology, virtual reality, and e-participation. She has published in leading journals such as International Journal of Information Management, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, and Simulation & Gaming. Juho Hamari (PhD) is a Professor of Gamification and leads the Gamification Group between Tampere University, Finland and University of Turku, Finland. He has authored seminal academic studies and lead several research projects on contemporary gameful phenomenon such as gamification, esports, streaming, mixed realities, peer-to-peer economies such as sharing economies and crowdsourcing and games in general. L. Hassan and J. Hamari Government Information Quarterly 37 (2020) 101461 21