Abstract
Purpose
Sustainability is one of the global challenges, individuals and businesses need to change their behavior and consumption patterns to move towards sustainable development. This is not possible without planning for education and related knowledge transfer. On the other hand, disruptive technologies such as virtual reality (VR) have revolutionized the field of education. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of holding traditional training courses and VR-based training courses on sustainable behavior.
Design/methodology/approach
It is a quasi-experimental study, in which pretest-posttest design and control group are used. The statistical population includes students of one of the Iranian universities. A total of 105 students were randomly divided into two experimental groups and one control group (35 students in each group). Experimental group 1 underwent a training course using VR and Experimental group 2 received a traditional training course. At first, a pre-test was performed and after completing the eight-session period (two 1-h sessions per week), the post-test was conducted again for the groups.
Findings
The results of analysis of variance test show that there was a significant difference between the mean scores of sustainable behaviors in the post-test phase in the two experimental groups and the control group. Using Tukey’s test, it was found that the scores of sustainable behavior were different among three groups in pairs. That is, holding a training course as well as using VR has been effective on sustainable behavior. Environmental policymakers and planners can use technologies such as VR to teach environmental issues to create a culture of sustainability and sustainable development, in addition to training and educational courses.
Originality/value
Contribution of this study shows that the use of VR can be effective in learning sustainable behavior. Also, holding training courses is a way to change the consumption pattern and behavior of people to maintain the environment and sustainability.
Keywords
Citation
Ronaghi, M.H. (2023), "The effect of virtual reality technology and education on sustainable behavior: a comparative quasi-experimental study", Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 475-492. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-02-2022-0025
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
Today, the issue of sustainability has become one of the concerns of different societies (Scurati et al., 2021). The sustainable development goals, set by the United Nations for 2030, include three main economic, social and environmental dimensions that address how natural resources are used and distributed fairly (Griggs et al., 2013). Natural resource mismanagement is a major part of the environmental problems facing the contemporary world (Baxter and Pelletier, 2020). Production of harmful substances and wastes for the environment is one of the problems of human societies and it is predicted that the production of wastes would increase from about 3.5 million tons in 2010 to about 6 million tons by 2025 (Hoornweg et al., 2013).
Consumers and citizens, by changing their lifestyles and consumption patterns, need to attempt reducing the production of harmful substances to the environment (Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al., 2021). To prevent damage to the environment, paying due attention to the sustainable behavior of people and taking care of natural resources that are slowly regenerated would be necessary (Ebersbach and Brandenburger, 2020). Given the importance of sustainability, the analysis of sustainable behavior and identifying the factors affecting it has been the concern of many researchers. In their study, Blizzard and Klotz (2012) used a systematic review method to provide a framework for designing sustainable systems. Chi et al. (2020) provided a framework for the sustainable behaviors of shared-bicycle users. They considered environmental stimuli such as government laws and social ethics and internal stimuli such as perceived competence, and perceived dependence as factors influencing sustainable behavior in the sharing economy. In another study, Liu (2021) examined the behavior of tourists and accordingly showed that sustainable behavior is related to environmental impacts and environment development.
In general, the factors affecting human behavior and in particular sustainable behavior are very complex (Gifford and Nilsson, 2014). Given the extent of sustainability, to exert a radical transformation and to change the consumption pattern, it would be necessary to educate citizens, improve the experts’ knowledge and ultimately support the change of behavior toward sustainable consumption habits (Scurati et al., 2021). In line with the ten-year United Nations policy being already set by 2030 for education for sustainable development (ESD), many training centers around the world have included courses related to sustainable development (Hsiao and Su, 2021). Accordingly, the discussion of education and learning in the field of sustainability is very important, but despite many studies done in this field, there are yet many obstacles in establishing the concept of environmental development and sustainable behavior (Liu, 2021).
In some former studies, the relationship between education, learning and the concept of sustainability has been addressed. In their study, Klug and Niemand (2021) evaluated a lifestyle called precycling, which was characterized by the prevention of pre-production waste. They believed that the precycling lifestyle was a part of sustainable consumption and shall not be included in the curriculum of schools and universities. Studies have also shown the effect of learning – in the form of a written factor such as short stories – on sustainable behavior. The results of the Ebersbach and Brandenburger’s (2020) study showed the positive effect of short stories on children’s sustainable behavior. In her study, Manning (2009) examined the psychological dimensions of learning sustainable behavior. She believed that there were three types of barriers to sustainable behavior; first, the physical barriers that exist in the real world, such as financial and infrastructural barriers; second, cultural and social barriers including imitating the behavior of others in relation to the environment; and third, individual and psychological barriers as to how to break the habit and lack of knowledge about a new behavior. Fostering sustainable behavior among children, young people and adults is one of the missions of education (Ebersbach and Brandenburger, 2020).
Given the importance of training in the field of sustainability and the environment, however, the current financial crisis and economic conditions have reduced investment in on-the-job training, and further this lack of training may lead to harmful behaviors and lack of knowledge transfer (Mirauda et al., 2020). Accordingly, the use of virtual technologies is important. The use of new technologies such as virtual reality (VR) is essential to maintain the enthusiasm of the next generation and to teach them advanced systems (Salah et al., 2019). Coskun et al. (2015) believed that the challenge for organizations and individuals to change behavior and achieve sustainability goals is lack of training and choosing the appropriate tools to implement them.
In this regard, VR technology as a virtual technology has been highly regarded by academic and educational institutions. VR-based training systems can be used to identify and experience products, become familiar with complex systems and simulate different environments (Taxén and Naeve, 2002). Merchant et al. (2014) showed VR as a good tool for improving the quality of education. VR, owing to its high flexibility, is an acceptable tool for creating sustainable behavior (Scurati et al., 2021). Given the potential of VR technology in the field of education and also the importance of sustainability, assessment of the impact of VR on sustainable behavior has been empirically identified as a research gap, which needs to be carefully examined. Therefore, in this study we seek to evaluate the impact of training courses on sustainable behavior and VR-based learning and to compare the two methods with each other. Accordingly, the research questions are:
What effect does the training course have on sustainable behavior?
What effect does the use of VR have on sustainable behavior learning?
Which traditional methods of training or VR technology have a greater impact on sustainable behavior?
Contribution of this study shows that the use of VR can be effective in learning sustainable behavior. Also, holding training courses is a way to change the consumption pattern and behavior of people in order to maintain the environment and sustainability. The results of this study are useful for environmental policymakers, managers of companies and educational institutions to invest in the use of virtual technologies in teaching sustainable behavior and pay attention to corporate social responsibility (CSR). In the second section, the literature of sustainability and the use of VR are discussed. In the third section, the methodology used in this study, the study groups and research tools are described. In the fourth section, the results of the experiments are presented. In the fifth section, in addition to analyzing the research findings, theoretical considerations, practical suggestions and existing limitations are explained, and finally in the last section, the final conclusion of the study is presented.
Literature review
Virtual reality and education
Although the concept of VR has changed a lot of its original concept, real-world simulation has always inspired researchers and artists (Jones, 2000). VR is the use of computer and a human–computer interface to simulate the real world and create a three-dimensional world (Bryson, 1996). VR, as a disruptive technology, is predicted to have effects on human life such as the internet and smartphones (Rosedale, 2017). The VR developers should consider the cultural and local dimensions of people in designing this technology (Zeng et al., 2022). Bevan et al. (2019) showed that viewer’s role, interaction visual and audio aspects are features of VR experiences. Interaction between users and virtual objects such as user control, user activity level, information retrieval method and feedback affects how VR experiences are designed (Sutcliffe et al., 2019). VR technology can influence people’s decision-making process and behavior through the ability to travel through time and space, create symbolic content, evaluate future strategies and deliver long-term results (Scurati et al., 2021). Zeng et al. (2022) believed that VR technology could stimulate tourists’ cultural dissemination manner. They showed VR is innovative and valuable tool for tourism marketing. With the advent of the 5G mobile network, a suitable platform will be created for the effectiveness of VR technology in educating and promoting students’ learning motivation (Hsiao and Su, 2021).
Many studies have mentioned the use of VR in education. One area where VR can be used is scientific visualization. For example, a virtual wind tunnel was designed at NASA Research Center. Using this program, scientists can manipulate the amount of virtual smoke and airflow around the space shuttle (Mazuryk and Gervautz, 1996). In another study, Shin et al. (2002) presented a virtual web-based laboratory system in which VR technology was used to teach process systems engineering. Using virtual technology, they tried to overcome temporal, spatial and safety and resource problems. In their study, Merchant et al. (2014) reviewed 67 articles related to VR and reported the positive impact of this technology on educational programs and its greater effectiveness. Due to the ability of 3D imaging, VR technology can be used to analyze the anatomy of the body by physicians and students (Pensieri and Pennacchini, 2014).
The use of VR in engineering concepts training might be effective in increasing student interaction and saving training time; besides, it is possible to repeat an experiment without equipment depreciation and with high security (Zhao and Lucas, 2015). The use of VR technology is compatible with classic and proven learning models such as experimental learning and situational learning, because the user can experience different situations in a virtual environment (Li et al., 2018). Salah et al. (2019) used a VR-based training method to teach the reconfigurable manufacturing system. The results of their study showed that the proposed method had a better performance than the traditional training methods in terms of user perception and satisfaction, number of errors and completion time.
Narciso et al. (2019) have shown that the use of VR is an innovative way to train firefighters and to reduce operational risks. After analyzing 99 articles, Kavanagh et al. (2017) categorized the motivation for using VR into intrinsic and pedagogical factors. Intrinsic factors include increased enjoyment, and motivation and pedagogical factors include play-based learning and participation. Weech et al. (2019) found a negative relationship between presence and cybersickness in VR and showed that factors such as navigation control and display factors play a mediating role in this regard. Manea-Tonis et al. (2020) used extended reality to assess the impact of virtual technology on people’s social lives and work. They found that students’ virtual experiences had direct impact on their culture and learning. Tilhou and Taylor’s (2020) study showed that VR brings better educational experiences for students and confirmed the learning and motivational achievements of this technology. Cai et al. (2021) evaluated the effect of virtual reality technology on the spoken English learning training. The results of their study showed that the spoken English learning was affected by cognitive style and VR technology. Huang et al. (2021) systematically reviewed VR and augmented reality (AR) technologies in language learning studies and showed that students were the main users of AR/VR technologies. The benefits of these technologies also include improving students’ language learning, increasing motivation and having a positive understanding of the use of technology.
Paszkiewicz et al. (2021) presented a methodology for implementing VR in education for industry 4.0. They believed that the virtual environment would improve students’ knowledge and skills. Also, using VR-based training courses reduces costs and increases employee safety and efficiency. New concepts such as learning factories refer to the use of new technologies in the field of education and are considered as a change in the field of education and have created real environments in the education process. In this regard, VR is a good tool for effective training of students and trainers (Abidi et al., 2012). VR enhances users’ cognitive ability and increases attractiveness due to different visual, audio and even touch capabilities (Paszkiewicz et al., 2021). According to the issues raised in this study, VR is used in the training course and it is assumed that VR is a suitable tool for the transfer of concepts and knowledge.
Virtual reality and sustainability
VR technology has been considered in the field of management and environment since the 1990s. For example, studies have shown that the use of 3D visualization in the tourism industry reduces carbon footprint (Dewailly, 1999). As we entered the 21st century, advances in virtual technologies led to the digital transformation of education. Disruptive technologies have also led to changes in the field of education and research in the field of sustainability (Abad-Segura et al., 2020). Nicholson-Cole (2005) predicted that in the future, VR imaging is used to predict weather based on people’s preferences. Summerville et al. (2005) presented a model based on four factors of “values”, “awareness”, “trial”, “evaluation” and “uptake”, and claimed that this framework is for using VR to encourage sustainable behavior. Jamei et al. (2017) explained some of the benefits of using VR in smart city design, including the ability to evaluate design ideas in real time and in 3D, effective communication between stakeholders, academics and professional associations, saving time and test costs and promoted participatory planning.
In their study, Mirauda et al. (2020) developed a VR-based training tool that was able to train workers on how to accurately measure open-channel flows. Their experimental results showed that VR Lab reduced the time and cost of control activities, increased users’ knowledge of hydraulic equipment and improved decision-making processes; besides, Abad-Segura et al. (2020) noted the importance of sustainability of educational technologies in the field of higher education. Kamari et al. (2021) evaluated building information modeling and enabled VR technology among civil and architectural engineers. They showed that the use of VR can be useful in the conceptual stage because it can eliminate additional costs and errors in the later stages of construction. Also, this technology is a useful tool for greater efficiency and sustainability in future design.
In their study, Scurati et al. (2021) provided a framework of VR experiences related to sustainable behavior as in Figure 1. Three spheres have been mentioned in this framework. Emotional sphere is related to how we perceive environmental issues, so VR can motivate us to promote sustainable behavior. Logical sphere is related to information, education and understanding of phenomena. It refers to the way people think in dealing with environmental issues. Practical sphere is related to the evaluation and comparison of measures and strategies to deal with environmental issues. These three spheres are shown in the form of dark circles in Figure 1. In this framework, the dimension of VR training is mentioned in the form of logical space and it is associated with improving the knowledge and skills of individuals.
Jolink and Niesten (2021) also proposed VR technology as an experimental approach to the study of sustainable behavior due to its ability to produce immersive environments. Based on the issues raised in this study, it is assumed that training courses and the use of VR technology can affect the sustainable behavior of people. According to previous studies, it has been found that many studies have examined the use of VR in the field of education and also the dimensions of VR use in sustainable behaviors have been studied. However, what is identified as a research gap in this field is the lack of practical study and the real test to examine the impact of VR on sustainable behavior. The use of experimental methods is one of the validated research methods. Here, there has been no study to evaluate the impact of this technology on learning the environmental behavior of individuals in the real environment. Also, comparing the impact of this technology with the traditional educational method is another difference of our study with previous studies that can be considered in educational policies.
Methodology
In this study, pretest-posttest design and control group were used to evaluate the impact of training and VR on sustainable behavior.
Participants
The statistical population of the study was students of one of the Iranian Universities. The reason for choosing students was their interest and power of learning and social participation. In this regard, 110 students were invited to participate in this research project, of which 105 agreed to participate in this study. Accordingly, the participation rate was 95.5%. Using convenience sampling, 105 students were selected and randomly divided into three groups. Participants’ level of education ranged from bachelor’s student to PhD student. The choice of method was random for controlling exogenous variables because it might affect the outcome and the dependent variable of this study.
Research design
Participants were divided into three groups. Then, for the first and second groups, a 4-h training course on sustainable development and the environment was held every week for four weeks. The first group of classes, in addition to teaching the content, also used VR technology. The second group classes were held in person and traditionally in the form of a lecture by the teacher. The third group was the control group. The control group included people who have not participated in the training course. During the experiment, these people were randomly assigned to this group. Therefore, they were very similar to the participants of the experimental group. The control group is important in the testing process because the results of other groups are compared with this group. In this study, students in the control group did not participate in training classes and the test results of other groups were compared with them. Pre-test and post-test were used for all three groups. The research design is shown in Table 1.
Research tool
Although the main focus of sustainable development is on the protection of natural resources and the environment, the protection of human resources such as society, culture and welfare of the people are as important as the protection of ecosystems (Tapia-Fonllem et al., 2013). Based on this, Tapia-Fonllem et al. (2013) provided a comprehensive framework including four dimensions of pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic and equitable actions to evaluate sustainable behavior. In this study, a questionnaire was designed based on the four dimensions (Appendix). The questionnaire consisted of 48 questions, of which three were related to demographic information and 45 were related to sustainable behavior. The initial questionnaire was modified according to the opinion of seven University professors with a background in sustainable development studies, so the face validity was verified. To evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used, which was equal to 0.81, 0.79, 0.83 and 0.80 for the four parts of the questionnaire, which are acceptable values.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test in SPSS-20 software.
Results
Demographic information of the participants is shown in Table 2. About 58% of the participants were female and 66% of them were undergraduate students.
After randomly dividing the participants into three groups, a pretest was taken and the ANOVA result (F = 3.429, p = 0.116 < 0.05) showed that there was no significant difference between the pre-test results of the three groups. Then, two experimental groups participated in training courses for four weeks. At the end of the training courses, a post-test was taken. Table 3 shows the pre-test and post-test information for experimental group 1 (E1). According to the t-values and p < 0.05, it is clear that the post-test results are significantly different from the pre-test for the first group. This means that all dimensions of sustainable behavior have been influenced by VR-based education and VR technology has been effective on sustainable behavior. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected:
There is no significant difference between the post-test and pre-test results of group E1.
There is a significant difference between the post-test and pre-test results of group E1.
Table 4 shows the pre-test and post-test information for the second experimental group (E2). Values of t and p < 0.05 indicate that there is a significant difference between the post-test and pre-test results of this group. This means that holding a traditional training course has been effective on the sustainable behavior of participants. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected:
There is no significant difference between the post-test and pre-test results of group E2.
There is a significant difference between the post-test and pre-test results of group E2.
The pre-test and post-test changes regarding the four dimensions of sustainable behavior are separately shown in Figures 2–5. As can be seen, the changes related to Experimental group 1, i.e. the use of VR technology, were more than the other two groups.
ANOVA test was used to compare the test results between the three groups. The results of ANOVA test are shown in Table 5. According to the F-value and p < 0.05, it is clear that at least two groups have significant differences with each other and require post hoc comparisons. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected:
The post-test results of the groups are equal (μ1=μ2=μ3).
At least there is a significant difference between the post-test results of the two groups.
Tukey’s test was used to determine the differences between the groups (Chiu et al., 2019). The results of Tukey’s test are shown in Table 6. Based on the obtained values, it is clear that there is a significant difference between the three groups in pairs. This means that the training course has been effective on sustainable behavior and also the use of VR technology has had a greater impact on sustainable behavior than the traditional training course.
Discussion
The more awareness of sustainable development, the more sustainable behavior will be promoted and the behavioral pattern of individuals will change (Yamane and Kaneko, 2020). Therefore, education is a good way to promote sustainable behavior and improve consumption patterns. Also, The UN put ESD on its agenda in its 10-year policy in 2019 (Hsiao and Su, 2021). Ebersbach and Brandenburger (2020) in their studies pointed out the importance of training and learning in sustainability; Jolink and Niesten (2021) and Scurati et al. (2021) applied VR in the field of sustainability, but the distinguishing feature of this study was evaluating the impact of both traditional teaching methods and VR on sustainable behavior in an experimental study and comparing the two approaches. The results showed that to achieve sustainable development and environmental protection, we must pay attention to the field of education and new educational technologies. VR technology also has a greater impact on learning sustainable behavior than traditional teaching methods. The results of this research are theoretically and practically debatable.
Theoretical implication
In response to RQ1, it was found that there has been a difference between post-test and pre-test of the second group of experiments (t = 3.933, p = 0.001 < 0.05). Also, according to Tukey’s test, there has been a significant difference between post-test of experimental groups and control group; thus, it can be claimed that holding training courses would affect individuals’ sustainable behavior. Based on this, it can be said that education is one of the factors affecting the sustainable behavior of people. Changing consumption patterns requires educating citizens and improving their knowledge (Scurati et al., 2021). In this study, four dimensions of sustainable behavior were evaluated. Pro-ecological behavior refers to targeted behaviors to protect natural resources and the environment (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2010) and include activities such as recycling, energy storage, soil conservation and water conservation. The results of the study (t = 3.871, p = 0.003 < 0.05) showed that pro-ecological behavior is changed under the influence of education. In this regard, Klug and Niemand (2021) believed that the precycling pattern is part of sustainable consumption, he pointed out that this behavior was teachable. Similarly, Mirauda et al. (2020) found the effect of training experts in water conservation. The second dimension was frugal behaviors, which was opposed to consumerism. The results (t = 4.390, p = 0.000 < 0.05) showed that frugal behaviors had a significant change after the training course. Iwata (2002) showed that the factors of consumerist psychology might be changed under the influence of environmental information. Also, Albert (2019) showed the relationship between frugal innovation and sustainability. Altruistic behaviors are concerned with increasing the well-being of others (Tapia-Fonllem et al., 2013). According to the research results (t = 6.892, p = 0.002 < 0.05), by participating in training courses this motivational state is enhanced. In this regard, Marchetti et al. (2021) showed that the primary school children can become altruistic by using the educational course. The fourth dimension was equitable behaviors. The concept of sustainable development is based on justice between different generations. Sustainable development seeks to strike a balance between the interests of today’s generation and the achievements of the next generation. The results of the research (t = 3.212, p = 0.001 < 0.05) showed that the training course can promote equitable behavior. Based on an experimental experiment, Sadker and Sadker (1992) showed the effect of equity training program on students’ behavior.
In response to RQ2, it can be said that VR technology is an effective tool in teaching sustainable behavior. Compared to the pre-test, the post-test results of the first experimental group (t = 4.255, p = 0.001 < 0.05) has shown a significant difference. As a result, advances in virtual learning technology such as VR can be considered as the effective factors in changing consumption patterns and protecting the environment. A comparison done of our findings to the findings of earlier studies revealed that Paszkiewicz et al. (2021) believed that VR technology had a great impact on people’s learning due to its different audio, video and simulation capabilities. Also, Abidi et al. (2012) mentioned the concept of learning factory and the use of disruptive technologies such as VR in student education. Banos et al. (2006) believed that persuasive technologies like VR can affect people’s emotions and thus can change their attitudes. Also, the use of persuasive technology has an effect on energy consumption (Chiu et al., 2019). Lee et al. (2020) showed that VR quality factors strongly affect users’ psychological perception. Another study confirmed that the use of VR is effective in improving cognitive training in children (Zhao et al., 2021). Scurati et al.’s (2021) study also discussed the transfer of knowledge and teaching VR experiences in relation to sustainable behavior in a logical dimension.
To answer RQ3, the result of Tukey’s test showed that holding a VR-based training course had a greater impact on sustainable behavior than traditional training. Accordingly, the priority of using new educational technologies over traditional methods is approved in the field of sustainability. This finding is due to the fact that VR has advantages over traditional education, such as cost reduction, risk reduction, reproducibility, high control over training procedures and the possibility of self-learning (Bhagat et al., 2016; de Visser et al., 2011). Our results are consistent with a previous study, where Tilhou and Taylor (2020) believed that VR technology brings better educational experiences for students and confirmed the motivational factors of people using this technology. Summerville et al. (2005) also noted the importance of using VR in motivating people for sustainable environmental behavior. Such a result was in line with the findings of Tilhou and Taylor (2020) and Summerville et al. (2005).
Managerial implication
According to the results of research on the importance of holding training courses in the field of sustainability, it is suggested that environmental policymakers hold training classes for citizens to familiarize people with environmentally harmful behaviors, how to use natural resources and the concept of sustainable development. Sustainable behavior change among people at different ages is possible through education (Ebersbach and Brandenburger, 2020). Also, considering that the participants of this study were selected from among the students, so including the course on sustainable development and holding related workshops has an important impact on the formation of sustainable behavior of the young generation of society. Manea-Tonis et al. (2020) also showed that virtual technologies have an impact on students’ culture and learning. Klug and Niemand (2021) believed that the subject of precycling should be considered as educational and academic courses. Another result of the study showed that the use of virtual educational technology such as VR has a significant effect on sustainable behavior and is more effective in learning than traditional classes. Therefore, managers of organizations in line with CSR and environmental policymakers in cooperation with knowledge-based companies active in the field of information technology and VR are suggested to design specialized software in the field of environment so that in addition to specialized training of employees, ordinary people can be able to improve their knowledge using this technology. Also, more effective learning is enabled with the simulation done in this technology. VRLab can reduce the time and cost of operational activities and increase users’ knowledge (Mirauda et al., 2020). Due to the corona pandemic, the formation of face-to-face classes has encountered health problems, so the use of virtual technologies in holding training classes is a suitable solution under these conditions. Also, Abad-Segura et al. (2020) pointed out the importance of sustainability issues in higher education and universities. According to the research results, it is suggested that the topics of university courses in Iran be reviewed based on education related to sustainable development and teach students courses related to environment and sustainability at different stages.
Limitation and future studies
Considering that the training course in this study was for four weeks, the effect of factors such as educational environment factors and individual factors was not considered, so in future studies, the effect of these factors on sustainable behavior can be evaluated. In this study, participants were selected among young people and students. For future research, it is suggested to evaluate the training course and the use of VR for middle-aged and elderly people and compare the results with this study. Also, in evaluating the research variables, accurate statistical methods were used, which is considered as a research limitation, so for future research, the use of uncertain methods such as fuzzy logic is suggested because it is closer to reality. Another limitation of the research is the selection of Iranians. Considering that Iran is a developing country and is ranked 59th in the field of sustainable development (Sachs et al., 2020), it is recommended to evaluate and compare training courses in a developed country.
Conclusion
Protecting the environment and natural resources and paying attention to sustainable development is one of the concerns of communities. Citizens of society as well as companies need to learn about the right behavior appropriate to the concept of sustainability and attention to their social responsibility. Regarding RQ1, the results showed that holding training courses is effective on learning sustainable behavior in people. Also, in RQ2, it was found that VR educational technology is effective on sustainable behavior. The results related to RQ3 showed that classes based on VR technology had a greater effect than holding traditional training classes on learning sustainable behavior among participants. The results of this study showed that holding training courses and especially the use of virtual technologies in education are suitable strategies for learning sustainable behavior. Due to the economic constraints, holding face-to-face training is usually faced with challenges, and also holding these classes in the corona pandemic conditions is problematic. Therefore, managers and politicians in the field of environment can invest in software design and use of virtual education hardware to conduct training courses related to sustainable development for citizens and experts in this field. In this way, they can pave the way for the formation of sustainable behavior in individuals and also consider social responsibility.
Figures
Figure 1.
Virtual reality experiences to support sustainable behaviors
Figure 2.
Evolution of pro-ecological behavior
Figure 3.
Evolution of frugal actions
Figure 4.
Evolution of altruistic behaviors
Figure 5.
Evolution of equitable behaviors
Research design
| Measurements | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-intervention | Intervention | Post-intervention | |
| Experimental group 1 | E1 | T1 | E′1 |
| Experimental group 2 | E2 | T2 | E′2 |
| Control group | C1 | – | C′2 |
Descriptive statistics of students’ characteristics (N = 105)
| Demographic character | Frequency (n) | (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| <20 | 22 | 21 |
| 20–25 | 57 | 54 |
| 25–30 | 18 | 17 |
| >30 | 8 | 8 |
| Educational level | ||
| Bachelor’s student | 69 | 66 |
| Master’s student | 31 | 29 |
| PhD student | 5 | 5 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 44 | 42 |
| Female | 61 | 58 |
Difference in pre-post intervention for VR
| Variables | Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | t | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pro-ecological behavior | 2.141 ± 0.432 | 4.372 ± 0.481 | 5.263 | 0.000 |
| Frugal actions | 1.493 ± 0.525 | 4.225 ± 0.529 | 7.179 | 0.000 |
| Altruistic behaviors | 2.636 ± 0.549 | 3.906 ± 0.663 | 4.392 | 0.001 |
| Equitable behaviors | 1.541 ± 1.583 | 3.632 ± 0.416 | 3.212 | 0.001 |
| Sustainable behavior | 1.951 ± 0.436 | 4.047 ± 0.417 | 4.255 | 0.001 |
Difference in pre-post intervention for traditional training
| Variables | Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | t | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pro-ecological behavior | 1.841 ± 0.872 | 3.112 ± 0.611 | 3.871 | 0.003 |
| Frugal actions | 2.391 ± 0.925 | 3.005 ± 1.019 | 4.390 | 0.000 |
| Altruistic behaviors | 2.246 ± 0.389 | 3.229 ± 0.823 | 6.892 | 0.002 |
| Equitable behaviors | 1.961 ± 0.183 | 2.842 ± 0.736 | 3.212 | 0.001 |
| Sustainable behavior | 2.101 ± 0.536 | 3.057 ± 0.937 | 3.993 | 0.001 |
Summary of ANOVA of sustainability behavior
| Variables | Mean square value | Degree of freedom | F-value | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between groups | 575.762 | 2 | 8.076 | 0.001 |
| Within groups | 71.293 | 102 | ||
| Total | 104 |
Different scenarios using Tukey’s test
| i j | E'1 | E'2 | C'2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| E'1 | – | – | – |
| E'2 | 0.001 | – | – |
| C'2 | 0.000 | 0.012 | – |
Appendix. The research questionnaire
References
Abad-Segura, E., González-Zamar, M.D., Luque-de la Rosa, A. and Morales Cevallos, M.B. (2020), “Sustainability of educational technologies: an approach to augmented reality research”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 4091, doi: 10.3390/su12104091.
Abidi, M.H., El-Tamimi, A.M. and Al-Ahmari, A.M. (2012), “Virtual reality: next generation tool for distance education”, International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, Vol. 2, pp. 95-100.
Albert, M. (2019), “Sustainable frugal innovation – the connection between frugal innovation and sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 237, p. 117747, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117747.
Banos, R.M., Liano, V., Botella, C., Alcaniz, M., Guerrero, B. and Rey, B. (2006), “Changing induced moods via virtual reality”, in Ijsselsteijn, W.A., de Kort, Y.A.W., Midden, C., Eggen, B. and van den Hoven, E. (Eds), Persuasive Technology. PERSUASIVE 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3962, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, doi: 10.1007/11755494_3.
Baxter, D. and Pelletier, L. (2020), “The roles of motivation and goals on sustainable behaviour in a resource dilemma: a self-determination theory perspective”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 69, p. 101437, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101437.
Bevan, C., Green, D.P., Farmer, H., Rose, M., Cater, K., Stanton Fraser, D. and Brown, H. (2019), “Behind the curtain of the ‘ultimate empathy machine’ on the composition of virtual reality nonfiction experiences”, Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019, pp. 1-12.
Bhagat, K.K., Liou, W.-K. and Chang, C.-Y. (2016), “A cost-effective interactive 3D virtual reality system applied to military live firing training”, Virtual Reality, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 127-140.
Blizzard, J.L. and Klotz, L.E. (2012), “A framework for sustainable whole systems design”, Design Studies, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 456-479.
Bryson, S. (1996), “Virtual reality in scientific visualization”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 62-71.
Cai, J.-Y., Wang, R.-F., Wang, C.-Y., Ye, X.-D. and Li, X.-Z. (2021), “The influence of learners’ cognitive style and testing environment supported by virtual reality on English-speaking learning achievement”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 21, p. 11751, doi: 10.3390/su132111751.
Chi, M., George, J., Huang, R. and Wang, P. (2020), “Unraveling sustainable behaviors in the sharing economy: an empirical study of bicycle-sharing in China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 260, p. 120962, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120962.
Chiu, M., Kuo, T. and Liao, H. (2019), “Design for sustainable behavior strategies: impact of persuasive technology on energy usage”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 248, p. 119214, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119214.
Corral-Verdugo, V., Frías-Armenta, M. and García-Cadena, C. (2010), “Introduction to the psychological dimensions of sustainability”, in Corral-Verdugo, V., Frías-Armenta, M. and García-Cadena, C. (Eds), Psychological Approaches to Sustainability, Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 3-18.
Coskun, A., Zimmerman, J. and Erbug, C. (2015), “Promoting sustainability through behavior change: a review”, Design Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 183-204.
de Visser, H., Watson, M.O., Salvado, O. and Passenger, J.D. (2011), “Progress in virtual reality simulators for surgical training and certification”, Medical journal of Australia, Vol. 194 No. 4, pp. 38-40.
Dewailly, J.M. (1999), “Sustainable tourist space: from reality to virtual reality?”, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 41-55, doi: 10.1080/14616689908721293.
Ebersbach, M. and Brandenburger, I. (2020), “Reading a short story changes children’s sustainable behavior in a resource dilemma”, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Vol. 191, p. 104743, doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104743.
Gifford, R. and Nilsson, A. (2014), “Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 141-157.
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N. and Noble, I. (2013), “Sustainable development goals for people and planet”, Nature, Vol. 495 No. 7441, pp. 305-307.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P. and Kennedy, C. (2013), “Environment: waste production must peak this century”, Nature, Vol. 502 No. 7473, pp. 615-617, doi: 10.1038/502615a.
Hsiao, P.-W. and Su, C.-H. (2021), “A study on the impact of STEAM education for sustainable development courses and its effects on student motivation and learning”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 7, p. 3772, doi: 10.3390/su13073772.
Huang, X., Zou, D., Cheng, G. and Xie, H. (2021), “A systematic review of AR and VR enhanced language learning”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 9, p. 4639, doi: 10.3390/su13094639.
Iwata, O. (2002), “Coping style and three psychological measures associated with environmentally responsible behavior”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 661-669.
Jamei, E., Mortimer, M., Seyedmahmoudian, M., Horan, B. and Stojcevski, A. (2017), “Investigating the role of virtual reality in planning for sustainable smart cities”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 11, p. 2006, doi: 10.3390/su9112006.
Jolink, A. and Niesten, E. (2021), “Virtual reality and sustainable behavior in business”, Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, Vol. 2, p. 100012, doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100012.
Jones, S. (2000), “Towards a philosophy of virtual reality: issues implicit in ‘consciousness reframed’”, Leonardo, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 125-132, doi: 10.1162/002409400552388.
Kamari, A., Paari, A. and Torvund, H.Ø. (2021), “BIM-enabled virtual reality (VR) for sustainability life cycle and cost assessment”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 1, p. 249, doi: 10.3390/su13010249.
Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B. and Plimmer, B. (2017), “A systematic review of virtual reality in education”, Themes in Science and Technology Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-119.
Klug, K. and Niemand, T. (2021), “The lifestyle of sustainability: testing a behavioral measure of precycling”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 297, p. 126699, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126699.
Lee, M., Lee, S., Jeong, M. and Oh, H. (2020), “Quality of virtual reality and its impacts on behavioral intention”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 90, p. 102595, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102595.
Li, X., Yi, W., Chi, H., Wang, X. and Chan, A.P. (2018), “A critical review of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) applications in construction safety”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 86, pp. 150-162.
Liu, C.H. (2021), “Conducting qualitative and quantitative analyses of sustainable behavior”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 60, p. 102474, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102474.
Lubowiecki-Vikuk, A., Dabrowska, A. and Mnachnik, A. (2021), “Responsible consumer and lifestyle: sustainable insights”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 25, pp. 91-101, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.08.007.
Manea-Tonis, R., Manea-T, Oni, R., Simion, V.E., Ilic, D., Braicu, C. and Manea, N. (2020), “Sustainability in higher education: the relationship between work-life balance and XR E-Learning facilities”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 14, p. 5872, doi: 10.3390/su12145872.
Manning, C. (2009), “The psychology of sustainable behavior, Minnesota pollution control agency”, available at: www.pca.state.mn.us
Marchetti, A., Rinaldi, T., Lombardi, E., Massaro, D. and Valle, A. (2021), “Learning to wait, be altruistic, and fair: a primary school training in economic education”, Financial Education and Risk Literacy, pp. 112-122, doi: 10.4337/9781789908855.00014.
Mazuryk, T. and Gervautz, M. (1996), Virtual Reality-History, Applications, Technology and Future, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna.
Merchant, Z., Goetz, E.T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W. and Davis, T.J. (2014), “Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: a meta-analysis”, Computers and Education, Vol. 70, pp. 29-40.
Mirauda, D., Capece, N. and Erra, U. (2020), “Sustainable water management: virtual reality training for open-channel flow monitoring”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 3, p. 757, doi: 10.3390/su12030757.
Narciso, D., Melo, M., Raposo, J.V., Cunha, J. and Bessa, M. (2019), “Virtual reality in training: an experimental study with firefighters”, Multimedia Tools and Applications, Vol. 79 Nos 9/10, pp. 6227-6245, doi: 10.1007/s11042-019-08323-4.
Nicholson-Cole, S.A. (2005), “Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images for visual communication”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 255-273, doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2004.05.002.
Paszkiewicz, A., Salach, M., Dymora, P., Bolanowski, M., Budzik, G. and Kubiak, P. (2021), “Methodology of implementing virtual reality in education for industry 4.0”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 9, p. 5049, doi: 10.3390/su13095049.
Pensieri, C. and Pennacchini, M. (2014), “Overview: virtual reality in medicine”, Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, Vol. 7, pp. 1-33.
Rosedale, P. (2017), “Virtual reality: the next disruptor: a new kind of worldwide communication”, IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 48-50.
Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G. and Woelm, F. (2020), “The sustainable development goals and COVID-19”, Sustainable Development Report 2020, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sadker, M. and Sadker, D. (1992), “Ensuring equitable participation in college classes”, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 1992 No. 49, pp. 49-56, doi: 10.1002/tl.37219924906.
Salah, B., Abidi, M., Mian, S.H., Krid, M., Alkhalefah, H. and Abdo, A. (2019), “Virtual reality-based engineering education to enhance manufacturing sustainability in industry 4.0”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 5, p. 1477, doi: 10.3390/su11051477.
Scurati, G.W., Bertoni, M., Graziosi, S. and Ferrise, F. (2021), “Exploring the use of virtual reality to support environmentally sustainable behavior: a framework to design experiences”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 2, p. 943, doi: 10.3390/su13020943.
Shin, D., Yoon, E.S., Lee, K.Y. and Lee, E.S. (2002), “A web-based, interactive virtual laboratory system for unit operations and process systems engineering education: issues, design and implementation”, Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 319-330.
Summerville, J.A., Buys, L., Ginn, S., Bucolo, S., Walker, A., Gard, S. and Bell, L. (2005), “Engaging people in environmentally sustainable behaviours using interactive virtual reality: a conceptual framework”, Proceedings Social Change in the 21st Century Conference, QUT Carseldine, available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00003542
Sutcliffe, A.G., Poullis, C., Gregoriades, A., Katsouri, I., Tzanavari, A. and Herakleous, K. (2019), “Reflecting on the design process for virtual reality applications”, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 168-179.
Tapia-Fonllem, C., Corral-Verdugo, V., Fraijo-Sing, B. and Durón-Ramos, M.F. (2013), “Assessing sustainable behavior and its correlates: a measure of pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic and equitable actions”, Sustainability, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 711-723, doi: 10.3390/su5020711.
Taxén, G. and Naeve, A. (2002), “A system for exploring open issues in VR-based education”, Computers and Graphics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 593-598.
Tilhou, R. and Taylor, V. (2020), “Crompton, H. 3D virtual reality in K-12 education: a thematic systematic review”, Emerging Technologies and Pedagogies in the Curriculum, Springer, Singapore, pp. 169-184.
Weech, S., Kenny, S. and Barnett-Cowan, M. (2019), “Presence and cybersickness in virtual reality are negatively related: a review”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 158, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00158.
Yamane, T. and Kaneko, S. (2020), “Impact of raising awareness of sustainable development goals: survey experiment eliciting stakeholder preferences for corporate behavior”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 285, p. 125291, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125291.
Zeng, Y., Liu, L. and Xu, R. (2022), “The effects of a virtual reality tourism experience on tourist’s cultural dissemination behavior”, Tourism and Hospitality, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 314-329, doi: 10.3390/tourhosp3010021.
Zhao, D. and Lucas, J. (2015), “Virtual reality simulation for construction safety promotion”, International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
Zhao, J., Zhang, X., Wang, C. and Yang, J. (2021), “Effect of cognitive training based on virtual reality on the children with autism spectrum disorder”, Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2, p. 100013, doi: 10.1016/j.crbeha.2020.100013.
Further reading
Bailey, C. and Barnett, K. (2005), “Social change”, in the 21st Century 2005 Conference Proceedings, Vols 1/19, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Acknowledgements
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Availability of data and material: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.