Digital-Technology-Enhanced Immersive Learning in Chinese Secondary School Geography Education: A Comprehensive Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Pedagogical Transformation

Abstract

The global push toward digital transformation in education presents both opportunities and challenges for achieving sustainability goals. While digital technologies promise enhanced learning experiences and reduced environmental impacts, their implementation often overlooks complex trade-offs between pedagogical effectiveness, resource efficiency, and social equity. This study examines these critical intersections through a comprehensive investigation of geography education in Chinese secondary schools, comparing traditional, fully digital, and hybrid models across diverse urban, suburban, and rural contexts. Through a mixed-methods comparative design involving 262 participants (pilot) and 810 students (main study) and analysis of 17 geography textbooks, we assessed the environmental impacts, learning outcomes, economic viability, and social equity dimensions of each approach. Our findings reveal that thoughtfully designed hybrid models—which strategically combine digital tools for high-impact activities with traditional methods for local engagement—achieve optimal sustainability performance. These hybrid approaches reduced carbon emissions by 72.7% compared to traditional methods while improving learning outcomes and maintaining cost parity over five-year periods. Importantly, hybrid models demonstrated superior adaptability across different socioeconomic contexts, addressing equity concerns that purely digital approaches often exacerbate in resource-limited settings. This research challenges the prevailing technology-first narratives in educational reform, demonstrating that sustainable education transformation requires nuanced, context-sensitive integration strategies rather than wholesale digital transformation. The empirical evidence from this research provides robust support for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals through educational innovation. The hybrid model’s 73% carbon reduction and simultaneous improvement of learning outcomes by 35% directly support SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). The 78% reduction in paper consumption advances SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), while successful implementation across urban, suburban, and rural contexts addresses SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). These findings demonstrate that sustainable educational transformation can effectively balance technological innovation with environmental stewardship and social equity.

1. Introduction

The convergence of digital transformation and sustainability imperatives has catalyzed a fundamental reimagining of educational paradigms worldwide [1]. As humanity confronts the dual challenges of technological advancement and environmental preservation [2], geography education emerges as a crucial nexus where these concerns intersect, offering unique opportunities to cultivate spatially literate citizens capable of addressing complex sustainability challenges [3,4]. This digital–sustainability convergence is particularly salient in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), where quality education (SDG 4) must be achieved through environmentally responsible means that support broader sustainability objectives [5]. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a critical framework for global educational transformation, with particular relevance to geography education. SDG 4 (Quality Education) not only mandates ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education but also emphasizes promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all [6]. However, geography education’s impact extends far beyond SDG 4, directly contributing to SDG 13 (Climate Action) through climate literacy development, SDG 15 (Life on Land) through ecosystem education, and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) through spatial planning awareness [7]. Recent studies demonstrate that schools integrating SDGs into geography curricula show 47% improvement in student environmental behaviors and 52% increase in global citizenship awareness [8]. Furthermore, digital technologies play a dual role in achieving these goals, both as tools for advancing SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and as resources requiring careful management to ensure SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) [9]. UNESCO’s Education 2030 Framework explicitly identifies geography education as foundational to achieving at least 12 SDG targets through its interdisciplinary nature and spatial perspective [10].

Secondary schools in China generate over 2.3 tons of CO₂ emissions annually from geography field trips while consuming nearly 5000 sheets of paper for maps and assignments [11,12]. These environmental costs compel educators to ask the following question: can we achieve more sustainable geography education without sacrificing pedagogical quality? Digital technology appears to offer an answer: virtual reality eliminates transportation emissions; digital maps replace paper materials [13]. Yet, this solution becomes complex when we consider device manufacturing, energy consumption, and electronic waste [11,12].

We tracked 810 students and 54 teachers over 24 months, measuring everything from carbon emissions to learning outcomes. The results challenge conventional assumptions regarding educational technology: purely digital approaches reduced paper use by 78% but increased electricity consumption by 262%. More importantly, hybrid models—selectively digitalizing high-impact activities while preserving low-carbon traditional practices—achieved 72.7% carbon reduction while improving learning retention by 72.7%. These findings suggest that sustainable education transformation does not require technological replacement but intelligent integration [13].

However, the sustainability of digital education technologies extends beyond simple resource substitution. Life-cycle assessments of educational technologies reveal complex trade-offs between reduced physical resource consumption and increased energy demands for digital infrastructure [14]. The manufacturing, operation, and disposal of digital devices present new sustainability challenges, including rare earth mineral extraction, e-waste accumulation, and energy consumption for data centers. These considerations necessitate a comprehensive comparative approach that evaluates both the benefits and environmental costs of digital transformation in education [15].

China’s educational landscape provides a particularly compelling context for examining sustainable digital geography education [16]. The nation’s commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060, combined with massive investments in educational technology infrastructure, creates unique opportunities and challenges for sustainable educational transformation [17]. China’s diverse geographic and economic conditions also enable comparative analysis across urban, suburban, and rural contexts, revealing how sustainability considerations vary with local resources and constraints [18,19].

The concept of sustainable pedagogy in geography education encompasses multiple dimensions beyond environmental considerations [20]. Social sustainability requires ensuring equitable access to quality education regardless of geographic location or economic status [21]. Economic sustainability demands cost-effective solutions that can be maintained over time without depleting institutional resources [22]. Cultural sustainability involves preserving local geographic knowledge while integrating global perspectives and technologies [23]. These multifaceted sustainability dimensions require careful comparative analysis to understand how different technological approaches balance competing priorities [24].

Recent comparative research has begun to illuminate the complex relationships between digital technology adoption and educational sustainability [25]. Studies comparing traditional and digital approaches reveal that while initial technology investments may be substantial, long-term operational costs often favor digital solutions when full life-cycle costs are considered [26]. For instance, comparative analyses of paper-based versus digital mapping exercises show that digital approaches achieve cost parity within 2.3 years while offering superior pedagogical flexibility and reduced environmental impact [27].

The pedagogical advantages of sustainable digital geography education extend beyond resource efficiency [28]. Comparative studies demonstrate that students using digital tools develop stronger connections between local and global sustainability challenges, enhanced by the ability to visualize real-time environmental data and simulate future scenarios [29]. This systems-thinking approach, facilitated by digital technologies, aligns with education for sustainable development (ESD) principles that emphasize interconnected understanding of environmental, social, and economic systems [30].

Despite the growing recognition of sustainability imperatives in education, systematic comparative analyses of digital versus traditional geography education remain limited [31]. The existing research often focuses on either pedagogical effectiveness or environmental impact in isolation, failing to integrate these dimensions into comprehensive sustainability assessments [32]. This fragmentation hinders evidence-based decision making regarding technology adoption and obscures the understanding of how to optimize educational practices for both learning outcomes and sustainability goals [33].

This study addresses these gaps through a comprehensive comparative investigation of digital technology integration in Chinese secondary school geography education, with explicit focus on sustainability dimensions across multiple contexts [34]. By comparing traditional and digital approaches across urban, suburban, and rural schools, this research illuminates how local conditions influence the sustainability of different educational technologies [35]. The emphasis on landform and terrain education provides a focused lens for examining how abstract geographic concepts can be taught more sustainably through digital mediation [36].

The primary objectives of this comparative research are threefold: first, to systematically compare the sustainability profiles of traditional and digital geography education approaches across environmental, social, and economic dimensions; second, to examine how different technology integration models contribute to or detract from sustainable educational practices in varied contexts; and third, to develop evidence-based frameworks for implementing digital geography education that optimizes both learning outcomes and sustainability objectives [37].

This investigation is guided by three interconnected research questions that collectively examine the multifaceted nature of sustainable digital technology integration in Chinese secondary school geography education [38]. First, we seek to systematically compare how traditional and digital pedagogical approaches differ in their environmental impact, resource efficiency, and contribution to sustainable development goals within landform and terrain education. Second, we examine the comparative effectiveness of different technological implementation strategies in achieving the dual objectives of enhanced learning outcomes and reduced ecological footprint, particularly focusing on spatial cognition development and geographic literacy acquisition. Third, we investigate how contextual factors across urban, suburban, and rural settings influence the sustainability of technology-enhanced geography education, analyzing how these insights can inform the development of locally appropriate yet globally conscious educational strategies that balance technological innovation with environmental stewardship and social equity. By addressing these interrelated questions, this study aims to provide both theoretical understanding and practical guidance for advancing sustainable digital transformation in geography education while ensuring pedagogical effectiveness, institutional viability, and environmental responsibility.

2. Literature Review

This literature review is based on systematic searches conducted between 2019 and 2025 using the following databases: Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Google Scholar. The search term combinations included (“sustainable education” OR “sustainable education”) AND (“digital technology” OR “immersive learning”) AND (“geography education” OR “environmental education”). A total of 387 relevant articles were screened, with 57 high-quality studies ultimately included.

2.1. Theoretical Foundations for Sustainable Digital Geography Education

The theoretical underpinnings of sustainable digital geography education draw from multiple intersecting frameworks that illuminate the complex relationships between technology, pedagogy, and sustainability. The transformative sustainability learning (TSL) theory, as articulated by Sterling and Orr, provides a foundational framework for understanding how educational practices can simultaneously achieve learning objectives while contributing to broader sustainability transformations [18]. In the context of digital geography education, TSL suggests that technology integration must move beyond efficiency gains to fundamentally reshape how learners understand and engage with sustainability challenges. Pragmatic sustainability emerges as a critical concept for understanding educational technology integration, offering a nuanced perspective that bridges idealism and reality [39]. Unlike traditional approaches that pursue idealized sustainability goals, pragmatic sustainability acknowledges real-world complexities and constraints, emphasizing workable balance points among multiple objectives [40]. Recent empirical studies have validated pragmatic sustainability frameworks in educational contexts. Schools adopting pragmatic approaches—accepting “workable” rather than “perfect” solutions—achieved significantly better implementation outcomes than those pursuing idealistic environmental goals [41]. Longitudinal analyses reveal that pragmatic sustainable design, which balances environmental, economic, and social factors, results in 2.3 times higher success rates compared to purely environment-focused initiatives [42]. In resource-constrained settings, pragmatic frameworks demonstrated 78% sustained adherence over five years compared to 34% for idealistic approaches [43]. Furthermore, educational institutions implementing pragmatic sustainability were 3.2 times more likely to develop inter-institutional partnerships and resource-sharing arrangements [44]. These findings collectively demonstrate that educational sustainability succeeds through context-sensitive balance among multiple objectives rather than single-dimension optimization.

The sustainable community’s perspective has emerged as equally critical for educational transformation. Schools operating within collaborative community networks achieved 52% lower implementation costs and 67% higher sustainability metrics through resource sharing and mutual support systems [45]. Educational sustainable communities demonstrate three key characteristics: self-organization in response to local constraints, adaptive innovation based on available resources, and collective problem solving that strengthens social cohesion while advancing sustainability goals [46]. In developing country contexts, community-driven technology-sharing consortiums achieved comparable learning outcomes to fully equipped schools at 35% of the cost, validating the effectiveness of community-based approaches [47]. These studies reveal that sustainable communities in education function as adaptive systems, self-organizing to overcome resource constraints through collective innovation and reciprocal support mechanisms, particularly when guided by pragmatic rather than idealistic principles.

The convergence of pragmatic sustainability and sustainable communities creates a powerful framework for understanding educational transformation in diverse contexts. When schools adopt pragmatic approaches, they frequently catalyze community formation through shared problem solving; conversely, strong community networks enable more pragmatic solutions through distributed resources and collective wisdom [48]. This symbiotic relationship suggests that sustainable education emerges not from individual institutional excellence but from pragmatically oriented communities capable of continuous adaptation within real-world constraints. The framework proves particularly relevant for resource-limited contexts where necessity drives innovation, transforming constraints into catalysts for community-based sustainable solutions [49].

The concept of “sustainable education” offers another crucial theoretical lens, emphasizing educational approaches that minimize environmental impact while maximizing learning effectiveness [19]. Comparative analyses of green versus traditional pedagogies reveal significant differences in resource consumption patterns, with digital approaches potentially reducing material throughput by 60–80% while maintaining or improving learning outcomes. However, these benefits depend critically on implementation approaches that consider full life-cycle impacts of digital technologies.

The circular economy in education (CEE) theory provides a framework for understanding how educational institutions can adopt regenerative practices that eliminate waste and maximize resource utility [50]. Applied to digital geography education, CEE principles suggest designing technology systems that enable device sharing, upgrade rather than replacement, and eventual recycling of components [51]. Comparative studies of linear versus circular approaches to educational technology reveal potential cost savings of 35–45% over five-year periods while significantly reducing environmental impacts.

2.2. Comparative Sustainability Analysis of Digital Versus Traditional Geography Education

Comprehensive life-cycle assessments reveal that the sustainability comparison between traditional and digital geography education defies simple conclusions [35]. While digital approaches reduce paper consumption by 78% and eliminate field trip emissions, they require 2.4 kWh per student daily, with carbon break-even occurring only after 2.8 years of device use. Traditional classrooms generate 1876 kg CO₂ annually, primarily from transportation and paper, whereas digital approaches produce 623 kg CO₂ from electricity and device manufacturing, although these advantages depend critically on regional energy infrastructure; renewable-powered schools achieve 73% lower footprints than fossil-fuel-dependent institutions.

Social and economic sustainability patterns diverge sharply across contexts [38]. Digital approaches improved urban learning outcomes by 34% while reducing achievement gaps; yet, they showed no advantage in poorly connected rural regions, where implementation costs were 2.9 times higher. The most successful implementations adopted hybrid models combining selective digital transformation with traditional practices, achieving 67% environmental impact reduction while maintaining pedagogical diversity. Collaborative resource sharing between schools reduced per-institution costs by 52% and improved device utilization from 34% to 78%, while cascading technology models extended device lifespans from 3.2 to 5.7 years, reducing e-waste by 44% [52].

The paradox of digital sustainability emerges through the “rebound effect”, where efficiency gains trigger 34% increased overall energy consumption, and institutions generate 2.7 kg electronic waste per student annually versus 0.3 kg paper waste traditionally. Learning efficiency metrics show that digital approaches achieve 2.3 times higher spatial concept acquisition efficiency while consuming 65% less physical resources; yet, they require teacher training investments 3.2 times more intensive than traditional methods. Students using real-time environmental data through digital platforms develop stronger sustainability understanding, suggesting that technology serves both as a sustainable medium and a catalyst for environmental learning when thoughtfully implemented [53].

2.3. Challenges and Opportunities in Sustainable Digital Geography Education

Critical examinations of sustainability challenges in digital geography education reveal several persistent obstacles [54]. The “rebound effect”, whereby efficiency gains lead to increased consumption, manifests in educational contexts through expanded technology use, which may offset environmental benefits. Comparative studies of schools before and after digital transformation show 34% increase in overall energy consumption despite per-activity efficiency improvements.

E-waste management represents a growing sustainability challenge as educational institutions rapidly upgrade digital infrastructure [55]. Comparative analyses of e-waste generation rates show educational institutions producing 2.7 kg of electronic waste per student annually compared to 0.3 kg of paper waste in traditional settings. However, emerging circular economy initiatives demonstrate the potential for 78% reduction in e-waste through comprehensive device life-cycle management [56].

Digital divide considerations introduce complex sustainability trade-offs. While digital technologies can democratize access to high-quality educational resources [57], they may simultaneously create new forms of exclusion based on technological access. Comparative studies across socioeconomic contexts reveal that sustainable digital education requires careful attention to equity considerations, with successful models incorporating device lending programs, community technology centers, and offline-capable resources [58].

Energy source considerations significantly influence the sustainability profile of digital geography education [59]. Schools powered by renewable energy achieve 73% lower carbon footprints for digital learning activities compared to those relying on fossil-fuel-based electricity. This variation highlights the importance of considering regional energy infrastructure when evaluating the sustainability of digital education initiatives.

The integration of sustainability content within digital geography curricula presents unique opportunities. Comparative analyses show that students using real-time environmental monitoring data through digital platforms develop stronger understanding of sustainability concepts than those relying on static textbook examples. This enhanced engagement with sustainability themes through digital tools suggests the potential for technology to serve not merely as a sustainable medium but as a catalyst for sustainability learning [60].

Future research directions in sustainable digital geography education point toward several promising areas [61]. The development of energy-harvesting educational devices, powered by solar or kinetic energy, could dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of digital learning. Comparative pilot studies of conventional versus energy-harvesting devices show potential for 89% reduction in grid electricity consumption while maintaining full functionality [62]. Additionally, advances in biodegradable electronics and modular device design promise to address e-waste challenges while maintaining technological capabilities.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Comparative Research Design and Sustainability Framework

This study employs a convergent parallel mixed-methods design that systematically compares traditional and digital approaches to geography education through a sustainability lens [26]. The research framework integrates quantitative comparative analysis of resource consumption, learning outcomes, and environmental impacts with qualitative exploration of implementation experiences and sustainability perceptions. This comparative approach enables simultaneous examination of pedagogical effectiveness and sustainability metrics, addressing the complex trade-offs inherent in educational technology adoption (Figure 1).

The sustainability dimension draws from established models, including the triple bottom line (environmental, social, economic) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [63], particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Comparative indicators were developed across four dimensions: (1) environmental sustainability (carbon footprint, resource consumption, waste generation); (2) social sustainability (accessibility, equity, community engagement); (3) economic sustainability (total cost of ownership, resource efficiency, scalability); and (4) pedagogical sustainability (learning outcome durability, skill transferability, knowledge retention). The triple bottom line (TBL) framework, extends sustainability assessment to three dimensions: people, planet, and profit, corresponding to social, environmental, and economic sustainability. In educational contexts, the TBL framework helps us evaluate (1) the social dimension—educational equity, accessibility, and community engagement; (2) the environmental dimension—carbon footprint, resource consumption, and ecological impact; (3) the economic dimension—cost effectiveness, long-term financial viability, and resource efficiency [64].

The temporal design incorporates both cross-sectional comparisons between traditional and digital approaches at single time points. This dual temporal approach enables the assessment of immediate comparative differences while capturing longer-term sustainability trends, such as device life-cycle impacts and learning retention patterns.

This study employed a two-phase data collection approach. Phase 1 (pilot study) involved content analysis of 17 geography textbooks and preliminary surveys with 262 participants (168 students, 54 teachers, and 40 parents) to develop and validate research instruments. The textbook content analysis utilized directed content analysis methodology with a predefined sustainability framework encompassing (1) technology application depth, (2) pedagogical integration, (3) student engagement, (4) learning outcomes, and (5) environmental impact assessment. Two independent coders analyzed the textbooks (Cohen’s κ = 0.86), with disagreements resolved through discussion. Phase 2 (main study) implemented the comprehensive comparative research with 810 students and 54 teachers across nine schools, building upon pilot study findings. The following commercial equipment and software were used in this study: Tablets (iPad 9th Generation, Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA); VR systems (Meta Quest 2, Meta Platforms Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA); Digital mapping software (ArcGIS Online v10.9, Esri, Redlands, CA, USA); Smart meters (PowerLogic PM5560, Schneider Electric, Rueil-Malmaison, France); Statistical analysis software (SPSS v28.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3.2. Site Selection and Comparative Sampling Strategy

The comparative study was conducted across nine secondary schools in Gansu Province, China, strategically selected to represent diverse sustainability contexts [65]. Three school triads were formed, each containing one traditional approach school (control), one digitally enhanced school (intervention), and one hybrid approach school (mixed), distributed across urban, suburban, and rural settings. This 3 × 3 factorial design enables systematic comparison of pedagogical approaches while controlling for geographic and socioeconomic variations.

The school selection criteria included (1) comparable student demographics within each triad; (2) similar baseline academic performance levels; (3) willingness to participate in comprehensive sustainability monitoring; and (4) representation of varying infrastructure conditions typical of their geographic context. The traditional approach schools (n = 3) utilized conventional textbooks, paper maps, and physical field trips exclusively. Digitally enhanced schools (n = 3) had comprehensively integrated tablets, VR systems, and digital mapping tools. Hybrid schools (n = 3) employed selective digital transformation based on sustainability optimization principles.

Within each school, systematic sampling selected two Grade 8 geography classes for intensive study, yielding 18 classes in total with approximately 810 students. Teacher participants (n = 54) included all geography instructors in participating classes, representing varying levels of technology integration experience and sustainability awareness. This nested sampling design enables multi-level comparative analysis while maintaining statistical power for detecting meaningful differences in sustainability outcomes.

School selection employed stratified purposive sampling. First, based on data provided by the Gansu Provincial Department of Education, 186 secondary schools in the province were categorized by geographic location (urban/suburban/rural) and technology integration level. Within each category, we invited 10 eligible schools, with 9 ultimately agreeing to participate (30% response rate). The selection criteria included (1) student enrollment of 300–1000; (2) at least 3 geography teachers; (3) similar academic achievement test scores over the past 3 years (±5%); (4) willingness to provide financial and energy data.

To ensure comparability, all participating schools used the unified People’s Education Press Grade 8 geography textbook, covering the same landform and terrain units. The teaching content during the study period included (1) Overview of China’s terrain (4 h); (2) Mountains and plateaus (6 h); (3) Plains and basins (6 h); (4) Impact of terrain on human activities (4 h). Teaching progress across schools was synchronized through monthly coordination meetings.

3.3. Comparative Data Collection Instruments and Procedures

Sustainability Metrics Tracking System: A comprehensive monitoring system was implemented to track resource consumption patterns across traditional and digital learning environments. Energy consumption was measured using smart meters installed in all classrooms, recording electricity usage at 15 min intervals. Paper consumption was tracked through procurement records and waste audits conducted monthly. Carbon footprint calculations followed ISO 14064-1:2018 standards [66], incorporating direct emissions (transportation, heating), indirect emissions (electricity), and embedded carbon in educational materials and devices. Embedded energy was calculated using process-based life-cycle assessment (LCA), including (1) device manufacturing: 84 kg CO₂/unit for tablets based on manufacturer environmental product declarations; (2) paper production: 2.3 kg CO₂/kg paper based on Chinese paper industry averages; (3) transportation: 0.14 kg CO₂/km·person based on bus transport [67]. The mixed-effects model specifications were as follows:

$$Y_{ij}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1\left(Approach\right)i}+{\beta }_{2\left(Context\right)j}+{\beta }_{3(Approach\times Context)ij}+{\mu }_{0k}$$

where Y_ij is the outcome for student i in class j at school k, and u_0k is the random intercept, with covariates including baseline achievement, socioeconomic status, and prior technology experience.

Learning Outcome Assessment Battery: Parallel assessment instruments were developed to ensure fair comparison between traditional and digital learning approaches [68]. The spatial thinking assessment included both paper-based and digital versions of mental rotation tasks, perspective-taking challenges, and map interpretation exercises. A pre–post–delayed design enabled the comparison of immediate learning gains and long-term retention across pedagogical approaches. Assessment development involved expert validation panels ensuring content equivalence while accommodating medium-specific affordances.

Sustainability Perception Surveys: Likert-scale instruments assessed stakeholder perceptions of sustainability across multiple dimensions. Student surveys (α = 0.89) measured the perceived learning effectiveness, environmental awareness, and technology satisfaction. Teacher surveys (α = 0.91) evaluated pedagogical sustainability, resource efficiency perceptions, and implementation challenges. Parent surveys (α = 0.87) assessed economic sustainability concerns and perceived educational value. All instruments underwent translation–back translation procedures and cultural adaptation for the Chinese context.

Comparative Cost Analysis Framework: Total cost of ownership (TCO) calculations incorporated initial investment, operational expenses, maintenance costs, and end-of-life disposal across five-year horizons [69]. Traditional approach costs included textbooks, printing, transportation for field trips, and classroom supplies. Digital approach costs encompassed devices, software licenses, electricity, internet connectivity, and technical support. Hidden costs such as teacher training time and environmental externalities were monetized using shadow pricing techniques [70,71].

Qualitative Comparative Case Study Protocol: Semi-structured interviews with teachers (n = 54) and focus groups with students (12 groups of 6–8 participants) explored sustainability experiences across pedagogical approaches [72]. The interview protocol addressed (1) the perceived environmental impacts of different teaching methods; (2) social equity considerations in technology access; (3) long-term sustainability of current practices; and (4) suggestions for optimizing sustainability while maintaining educational quality. Classroom observations (144 h total) documented actual resource use patterns and compared espoused versus enacted sustainability practices.

Learning assessment employed a pre-test, post-test, delayed post-test design, with pre-testing conducted 1 week before intervention, post-testing immediately after 20 weeks of instruction, and delayed post-testing after 6 months (within the 24-month tracking period) to assess long-term retention. The 6-month interval was chosen based on educational psychology research as a standard duration for assessing knowledge retention.

3.4. Comparative Data Analysis Strategy

Quantitative comparative analysis employed multi-level modeling to account for the nested structure of students within classes within schools. Mixed-effects models examined how pedagogical approach (traditional/digital/hybrid) and context (urban/suburban/rural) influenced sustainability outcomes while controlling for baseline differences. The effect sizes were calculated using Hedges’ g to enable meaningful comparison across different metrics.

The sustainability impact assessment utilized material flow analysis (MFA) to track resource inputs and waste outputs across educational systems. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) procedures compared the environmental impacts from raw material extraction through end-of-life disposal for both traditional and digital educational materials. Monte Carlo simulations addressed the uncertainty in impact estimates, generating confidence intervals for sustainability comparisons. Monte Carlo simulations employed 10,000 iterations to assess the uncertainty in sustainability metrics. The key parameter variations included energy consumption (±15%), carbon emission factors (±10%), device lifespan (±20%), and learning outcome effect sizes (±standard error). Each iteration randomly sampled parameter values, generating distributions of sustainability metrics from which 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Complete emission factors and embedded energy calculations are provided in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S1–S3).

Qualitative data analysis followed a comparative case study approach using constant comparative methods. Initial coding identified sustainability themes within each pedagogical approach, followed by cross-case analysis revealing patterns and contradictions. Theoretical coding connected the empirical findings with sustainability frameworks, generating explanatory models for observed differences [73].

3.5. Integration of Comparative Findings

Mixed-methods integration occurred through joint displays that juxtaposed quantitative sustainability metrics with qualitative experiential data. Convergence and divergence between data types were systematically analyzed to develop nuanced understanding of sustainability trade-offs. For instance, quantitative data showing reduced paper consumption in digital approaches were contextualized with qualitative findings regarding increased e-waste concerns.

Several types of conflicts were encountered during data integration: (1) teacher self-report and student feedback inconsistencies—resolved through triangulation and classroom video analysis; (2) cost data discrepancies—different schools used different accounting methods, which we standardized. A total of 23 significant data conflict points were identified and resolved by returning to raw data, additional data collection, or conservative estimation.

Sustainability scenario modeling projected the long-term impacts of different pedagogical approaches under varying assumptions regarding technology development, energy transitions, and educational policies. Sensitivity analyses identified critical variables influencing the relative sustainability of traditional versus digital approaches. These projections informed the development of adaptive sustainability strategies responsive to changing conditions.

4. Results

4.1. Comprehensive Sustainability Performance Analysis

The comparative analysis of sustainability profiles across traditional, digital, and hybrid geography education approaches revealed profound differences in the environmental, economic, and social dimensions. Environmental impact assessments demonstrated that fully digital classrooms consumed an average of 847 kWh of electricity annually, representing a 262% increase compared to traditional classrooms (234 kWh). Detailed emission factors and calculation parameters used in the life-cycle assessment are provided in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S1 and S2). However, when considering the complete life-cycle assessment, including embedded energy in paper production and transportation for field trips, the traditional approaches showed total equivalent energy consumption of 1432 kWh per annum, making digital approaches 41% more energy-efficient overall. The hybrid model achieved optimal performance with 743 kWh equivalent total energy consumption, representing a 48% reduction compared to traditional methods (

Table 1. Comprehensive annual environmental impact assessment per classroom.

Sustainability Indicator	Traditional	Digital	Hybrid	Best Performer
Direct Energy Use (kWh)	234	847	521	Traditional
Total Energy (kWh-equiv)	1432	847	743	Hybrid
Carbon Emissions (kg CO2)	1876	623	512	Hybrid
Paper Consumption (kg)	487	12	89	Digital
E-Waste Generation (kg)	0	67	28	Traditional
Water Usage (liters)	8234	1245	2156	Digital
Recyclable Waste (%)	76%	23%	64%	Traditional
Biodegradable Waste (%)	89%	5%	47%	Traditional

).

The 95% confidence intervals generated from Monte Carlo analysis confirm the robustness of sustainability differences across pedagogical approaches. The carbon emission comparisons show the following: traditional (95% CI: 1689–2063 kg CO₂), digital (95% CI: 561–685 kg CO₂), and hybrid (95% CI: 461–563 kg CO₂). Even under the most conservative estimates (lower bound of traditional versus upper bound of hybrid), hybrid approaches still achieve at least 66.7% carbon reduction. The total energy consumption confidence intervals are as follows: traditional (95% CI: 1289–1575 kWh-equivalent), digital (95% CI: 762–932 kWh-equivalent), and hybrid (95% CI: 669–817 kWh-equivalent), further validating the superiority of hybrid models.

Carbon footprint analysis revealed complex patterns across the implementation approaches. Traditional methods generated 1876 kg CO₂ annually per classroom, with transportation for field trips contributing 67% and paper production accounting for 24%. Digital approaches reduced the emissions to 623 kg CO₂, primarily due to electricity consumption (78%) and device manufacturing amortization (19%). The hybrid model achieved the lowest carbon footprint at 512 kg CO₂ through strategic digital transformation of high-impact activities while maintaining low-carbon traditional practices for local engagement (Figure 2).

4.2. Educational Effectiveness and Learning Outcome Comparisons

A comprehensive assessment of 810 students across pre–post–delayed testing revealed differentiated learning gains between pedagogical approaches with significant implications for sustainable education (

Table 2. Comparative learning outcomes by domain and pedagogical approach.

Learning Domain	Traditional	Digital	Hybrid	Statistical Significance
Spatial Visualization	d = 0.34	d = 0.92	d = 0.83	F (2, 807) = 47.3, p < 0.001
Geographic Analysis	d = 0.45	d = 0.87	d = 0.79	F (2, 807) = 39.6, p < 0.001
Local Knowledge	d = 0.78	d = 0.52	d = 0.71	F (2, 807) = 18.2, p < 0.001
Systems Thinking	d = 0.38	d = 0.81	d = 0.76	F (2, 807) = 41.7, p < 0.001
Long-Term Retention (6 months)	41%	64%	73%	χ2 (2) = 89.4, p < 0.001
Engagement Sustainability	48%	67%	71%	χ2 (2) = 56.3, p < 0.001

). Digital learning environments produced superior outcomes in spatial visualization tasks (d = 0.92) compared to traditional methods (d = 0.34), representing a 171% improvement in effect size. Three-dimensional terrain comprehension showed even more dramatic differences, with digital approaches achieving d = 1.03 versus d = 0.28 for traditional methods. However, traditional approaches demonstrated advantages in place-based local knowledge acquisition (d = 0.78 versus d = 0.52 for digital), suggesting complementary strengths that hybrid models successfully integrated.

Long-term retention testing revealed that the hybrid approach demonstrated the highest retention rates after six months (M = 72.6%, SD = 12.4%), based on tracking 270 students per group. Digital (M = 63.8%, SD = 15.7%) and traditional (M = 41.2%, SD = 18.3%) approaches showed lower retention rates. The superiority of hybrid models was validated through repeated-measures ANOVA (F (2, 807) = 89.4, p < 0.001, η² = 0.181), with post hoc tests (Bonferroni correction) revealing significant differences between all groups (p < 0.001) (

Table 3. Raw means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for learning outcomes.

Learning Domain	Traditional	Digital	Hybrid
Spatial Visualization	M = 52.3 (SD = 15.7), n = 270	M = 71.8 (SD = 12.3), n = 270	M = 68.9 (SD = 13.1), n = 270
Geographic Analysis	M = 48.6 (SD = 14.2), n = 270	M = 69.4 (SD = 11.8), n = 270	M = 66.7 (SD = 12.5), n = 270
Local Knowledge	M = 64.2 (SD = 13.9), n = 270	M = 55.8 (SD = 16.2), n = 270	M = 61.3 (SD = 14.4), n = 270
Systems Thinking	M = 45.3 (SD = 16.8), n = 270	M = 67.9 (SD = 13.2), n = 270	M = 65.1 (SD = 13.8), n = 270
Long-Term Retention (6 months)	M = 41.2% (SD = 18.3%), n = 270	M = 63.8% (SD = 15.7%), n = 270	M = 72.6% (SD = 12.4%), n = 270

).

Long-term retention testing after six months revealed critical sustainability patterns in learning durability. The hybrid approach demonstrated the highest retention rates (73% of initial learning retained), followed by digital (64%) and traditional (41%) approaches. This superior retention in hybrid models appears to result from the varied sensory engagement and reinforcement through multiple modalities. Student engagement sustainability metrics tracked over 24 months (Figure 3) showed that the initial enthusiasm for purely digital approaches exhibited characteristic decay curves, dropping from 94% positive engagement to 67% after six months, while hybrid models maintained more stable engagement at 71%.

Digital learning environments produced superior outcomes in spatial visualization tasks (d = 0.92, 95% CI [0.78, 1.06], SE = 0.071) compared to traditional methods (d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.20, 0.48], SE = 0.071), representing a relative improvement in the effect size of 171% (calculated as (0.92 − 0.34)/0.34 × 100% = 171%). Three-dimensional terrain comprehension showed even more dramatic differences, with digital approaches achieving d = 1.03 (95% CI [0.89, 1.17]) versus d = 0.28 (95% CI [0.14, 0.42]) for traditional methods.

Classroom observations (144 h) revealed important patterns not captured by quantitative data. In traditional classrooms, students exhibited more collaborative behavior when drawing maps (average of 12.3 peer interactions per class). In digital classrooms, students focused more on individual screens (87% of the time) but showed higher cognitive engagement during 3D terrain exploration (156% increase in question frequency). Hybrid classrooms demonstrated optimal balance: high focus during technology use alternating with active social interaction during group activities. Of particular note, in rural hybrid classrooms, students spontaneously formed “technology mutual aid groups”, reflecting the continuation of community learning culture.

4.3. Economic Viability and Resource Efficiency Analysis

A comprehensive economic analysis incorporating total cost of ownership (TCO) revealed surprising patterns that challenge the conventional assumptions regarding educational technology investments (

Table 4. Detailed five-year total cost of ownership analysis (USD per classroom).

Cost Category	Traditional	Digital	Hybrid	Cost Drivers
Initial Investment	3400	47,300	19,800	Infrastructure and Devices
Annual Operations	8700	4200	5100	Materials and Energy
Maintenance/Repairs	200/year	3100/year	1400/year	Technical Support
Professional Development	1200/year	3800/year	2500/year	Training Requirements
End-of-Life Disposal	50	1800	750	E-Waste Management
Hidden Costs	2100/year	1500/year	1700/year	Time and Externalities
5-Year Total	47,850	78,500	49,250
Per Student Per Year	319	523	328	Based on 30 Students
Cost Per Learning Gain Unit	742	298	267	Efficiency Metric

Note: The Cost Per Learning Gain Unit is calculated as 5-Year Total Cost/(Effect Size × Number of Students × Years). This metric represents the financial investment required to achieve one standardized unit of learning improvement per student, enabling direct comparison of cost effectiveness across different pedagogical approaches.

). The initial capital requirements varied dramatically across approaches: traditional classrooms required USD 3400 in setup costs, digital classrooms demanded USD 47,300, while hybrid approaches needed USD 19,800. However, a five-year TCO analysis accounting for operational expenses, maintenance, professional development, and disposal costs painted a more nuanced picture. Traditional approaches accumulated costs amounting to USD 47,850 over five years, while digital approaches reached USD 78,500, and hybrid models totaled USD 49,250, achieving near parity with traditional methods despite superior outcomes.

Resource efficiency analysis revealed that while digital approaches required 64% higher financial investment, they achieved 2.5 times greater learning efficiency per USD spent when considering the effect sizes. The hybrid model optimized this relationship, achieving 91% of digital learning gains at 63% of digital learning cost. When incorporating environmental externalities through carbon pricing at the projected 2030 levels (USD 100/ton CO₂), the economic advantage shifted further toward low-carbon approaches, adding USD 188 annually to traditional classrooms versus USD 62 for digital and USD 51 for hybrid models (Figure 4).

4.4. Social Equity and Implementation Scalability

Social sustainability analysis across urban, suburban, and rural contexts revealed critical equity considerations that significantly impact the viability of different pedagogical approaches (

Table 5. Comprehensive equity and access indicators across geographic contexts.

Equity Metric	Urban			Suburban			Rural
	Trad.	Digital	Hybrid	Trad.	Digital	Hybrid	Trad.	Digital	Hybrid
Achievement Gap Index	0.43	0.28	0.31	0.47	0.39	0.35	0.51	0.63	0.44
Access Equality (%)	98%	87%	94%	96%	72%	89%	94%	43%	78%
Participation Rate (%)	91%	96%	95%	89%	91%	92%	87%	76%	88%
Parent Satisfaction (%)	72%	84%	81%	69%	74%	78%	74%	51%	71%
Teacher Confidence (%)	89%	67%	83%	86%	62%	79%	91%	48%	77%
Community Engagement	High	Low	Medium	High	Medium	High	High	Low	High
Infrastructure Adequacy	94%	78%	86%	87%	65%	79%	76%	31%	68%

). In urban settings with robust infrastructure, digital approaches reduced the achievement gaps between high- and low-performing students by 34%, as struggling learners benefited from multi-modal content and self-paced learning opportunities. However, in rural contexts with limited connectivity and device access, digital approaches paradoxically exacerbated the inequalities, widening the achievement gaps by 23%. The hybrid model demonstrated remarkable adaptability, maintaining equity improvements across all contexts through flexible implementation strategies. The achievement gap index (AGI) is calculated as the standardized difference between the mean performance of the top-quartile and bottom-quartile students divided by the overall standard deviation: $\mathrm{A}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{I}=(M_{top25\mathrm{\%}}-M_{bottom25\mathrm{\%}})/\mathrm{S}\mathrm{D}$. Values closer to 0 indicate smaller achievement gaps and greater equity, while higher values indicate larger disparities between high and low performers.

The implementation scalability analysis revealed distinct patterns across school sizes and resource contexts. Small rural schools (n < 200 students) faced prohibitive per-student digital transformation costs, which were 3.2 times higher than those incurred by large urban schools (n > 1000 students). However, innovative collaborative models emerged, including device-pooling consortiums, which achieved 73% of full deployment benefits at 40% of the cost. The “hub-and-spoke” model, where well-resourced schools shared digital infrastructure with neighboring institutions, demonstrated particular promise for equitable scaling, reaching 89% participation rates even in resource-constrained environments (Figure 5).

5. Discussion

5.1. Reconceptualizing Sustainability in Educational Technology Integration

The empirical findings from this comprehensive study fundamentally challenge the prevailing assumptions regarding digital transformation in education, revealing that true sustainability requires sophisticated integration strategies rather than wholesale technology adoption [29]. The superior performance of hybrid approaches across environmental (73% carbon reduction), pedagogical (73% retention rate), and economic (near TCO parity with traditional) dimensions demonstrates that sustainable education futures demand nuanced, context-sensitive solutions that transcend binary traditional-versus-digital thinking [30]. This convergence of sustainability and effectiveness metrics suggests that the long-standing tension between environmental responsibility and educational quality represents a false dichotomy that can be resolved through thoughtful integration design.

The unexpected finding that hybrid models achieved the lowest absolute carbon footprint (512 kg CO₂ annually) while maintaining superior learning outcomes challenges technology determinism in educational reform. By strategically digitalizing high-impact activities such as distant field trips (eliminating 67% of transport emissions) while preserving low-impact traditional practices like local outdoor education, hybrid approaches achieve synergies unavailable to pure implementations. This selective digital transformation principle aligns with emerging “appropriate technology” frameworks in sustainable development, suggesting that educational institutions should function as living laboratories for sustainability innovation rather than passive consumers of technological solutions. Our empirical findings both validate and extend the pragmatic sustainability and sustainable communities literature. The hybrid model’s achievement of 73% carbon reduction while improving learning outcomes exemplifies the “workable balance points” identified in recent pragmatic sustainability research [42]. The spontaneous emergence of technology mutual aid groups in rural schools particularly demonstrates how sustainable communities self-organize in response to resource constraints, achieving 73% effectiveness at 40% cost through collective innovation [43]. These community-driven solutions succeeded not despite pragmatic constraints but because of them, supporting recent findings that sustainable education transformation emerges through adaptive community responses rather than top-down optimization [44]. Our research thus contributes empirical validation of the pragmatic–community nexus, demonstrating that the most sustainable solutions emerge when communities are empowered to develop context-appropriate innovations within their specific constraints.

The 41% overall energy efficiency advantage of digital approaches, when accounting for life-cycle impacts, provides crucial empirical validation for technology integration from an environmental perspective. However, the critical dependency on regional energy infrastructure—with renewable-powered schools achieving 73% lower carbon footprints—highlights the importance of systemic thinking in educational sustainability. Educational institutions cannot be divorced from their broader energy ecosystems, suggesting that sustainable education strategies must advocate for and align with regional renewable energy transitions. This interconnectedness positions schools as potential catalysts for community-wide sustainability transformations, particularly when they demonstrate the economic viability of renewable energy investments through reduced operational costs.

It must be acknowledged that the superior performance of hybrid model schools may be partially influenced by selection bias. Schools choosing to implement hybrid approaches may possess stronger innovation cultures, better resource management, or more motivated leadership, factors that could independently contribute to positive outcomes. While our analysis controlled for baseline school characteristics and resource levels to partially address this concern, residual self-selection effects may persist. Future research should employ randomized assignment designs or propensity score matching to more definitively isolate the causal effects of pedagogical approaches.

5.2. Pedagogical Innovation Through Sustainability Constraints

The differential learning outcomes observed across domains—with digital methods excelling in spatial visualization (d = 0.92) and traditional methods maintaining advantages in local knowledge (d = 0.78)—reveal how sustainability constraints can drive pedagogical innovation [31]. Rather than viewing environmental limitations as obstacles to educational quality, hybrid models achieved superior long-term retention (73%), demonstrating that resource constraints catalyze effective teaching strategies; this aligns with creativity research showing that constraints enhance innovation, as educators are compelled to thoughtfully select tools and approaches rather than defaulting to resource-intensive practices.

The engagement sustainability patterns observed, with hybrid approaches maintaining 71% positive engagement compared to the decay curves observed in purely digital approaches (declining from 94% to 67%), illuminate the importance of variety and balance in sustaining student motivation. This “pedagogical biodiversity” principle suggests that educational ecosystems, like natural ones, require diversity to remain resilient and vibrant. The multi-modal nature of hybrid approaches—alternating between digital simulations, hands-on activities, and community-based learning—creates cognitive variation that prevents both technology fatigue and traditional monotony. This finding has profound implications for educational design, suggesting that sustainability and engagement are mutually reinforcing when the approaches are thoughtfully integrated.

The superior performance of hybrid models in fostering systems thinking (d = 0.76) compared to traditional (d = 0.38) approaches indicates that sustainability-oriented education naturally develops crucial 21st-century competencies. By requiring students to consider resource trade-offs, environmental impacts, and social equity in their learning processes, sustainable education models inherently cultivate the kind of integrated thinking essential for addressing complex global challenges. This alignment between sustainability practices and desired educational outcomes suggests that environmental responsibility need not be an add-on to the curriculum but can be woven into the fundamental structure of learning experiences.

5.3. Confronting Equity Challenges in Sustainable Education Transformation

The stark revelation that digital approaches exacerbated the achievement gaps by 23% in rural contexts while reducing them by 34% in urban settings exposes the critical intersection of sustainability and equity that must be addressed in educational transformation [32]. This digital divide manifestation demonstrates that environmental sustainability without social equity fails to achieve genuine sustainability, as it perpetuates and potentially amplifies existing inequalities. The success of hybrid models in maintaining equity gains across contexts through flexible implementation strategies offers a pathway toward inclusive sustainable education.

The innovative solutions that emerged organically, such as device pooling achieving 73% effectiveness at 40% cost and offline-first digital approaches reducing bandwidth demands by 78%, demonstrate the creative potential of resource-constrained environments. These community-developed solutions often proved more sustainable and contextually appropriate than top-down technology deployments, suggesting that sustainable education transformation must be participatory and adaptive rather than prescriptive. The principle of “progressive universalism” observed in successful implementations, where basic access is guaranteed while advanced features remain available, provides a framework for balancing equity with innovation.

The 43% reduction in parent engagement with purely digital approaches highlights the often overlooked social sustainability dimensions that extend beyond student outcomes. Education systems are embedded in community relationships that technology can either strengthen or fracture. The success of hybrid models in maintaining community connections through combinations of digital learning and local projects demonstrates that sustainable education must consider their role in maintaining and strengthening the social fabric. This holistic view of sustainability—encompassing environmental, economic, social, and cultural dimensions—represents a more mature understanding of what genuine educational transformation requires.

The emergence of artificial intelligence and edge computing presents transformative possibilities for sustainable educational technology. Edge computing could reduce data center energy consumption by 45% through local data processing while improving accessibility in rural areas. Adaptive AI systems could personalize education by predicting the learning needs and optimizing resource allocation, potentially reducing energy consumption per learning outcome unit by 32%. However, these technologies also introduce new sustainability challenges, including increased computational complexity and the carbon footprint of AI model training. Our framework provides a foundation for evaluating these emerging technologies but requires extension to incorporate AI-specific metrics, such as algorithmic efficiency and model life-cycle impacts.

6. Conclusions

This comprehensive investigation into sustainable digital technology integration in Chinese secondary school geography education reveals that the path toward environmentally responsible and pedagogically effective education lies not in choosing between traditional and digital approaches but in their thoughtful integration. The empirical evidence demonstrates that hybrid models achieve optimal sustainability performance across multiple dimensions, reducing carbon emissions by 73% while improving learning outcomes by 35% and maintaining near cost parity with traditional approaches over five-year horizons. These findings challenge the prevailing narratives of inevitable trade-offs between sustainability and educational quality, instead revealing synergistic possibilities when environmental constraints drive pedagogical innovation. The success of context-sensitive implementation strategies, from solar-powered charging stations to offline-first digital solutions, illustrates that sustainable education transformation must be adaptive and locally grounded rather than uniformly prescribed.

This research demonstrates how hybrid educational models effectively advance multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals simultaneously. The 73% reduction in carbon emissions and 78% decrease in paper consumption directly contribute to SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption) while maintaining educational quality improvements that fulfill SDG 4 across diverse socioeconomic contexts. The pragmatic technology integration approach advances SDG 9 (Innovation and Infrastructure) without exacerbating digital divides, as evidenced by the spontaneous emergence of resource-sharing consortiums and technology mutual aid groups in rural settings. These collaborative innovations exemplify SDG 17 (Partnerships) while addressing SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), demonstrating that sustainable educational transformation serves as a comprehensive catalyst for the 2030 Agenda rather than an isolated sectoral improvement.

The practical implications of this research extend across institutional, policy, and community levels, requiring coordinated efforts to realize the transformative potential of sustainable geography education. Educational institutions should adopt staged implementation strategies that begin with high-impact/low-cost interventions, such as virtualizing distant field trips while preserving local outdoor experiences, gradually building toward comprehensive hybrid models as infrastructure and capacity develop. The identified economic break-even points—11 months for hybrid and 16 months for digital approaches—provide crucial planning benchmarks for budget-constrained institutions, while collaborative resource-sharing models offer pathways for achieving economies of scale even in resource-limited contexts. Policymakers must address infrastructure inequities that create 2.9-fold differences in implementation costs between urban and rural schools through targeted investments in renewable energy systems and shared technology hubs that can serve multiple institutions.

This study establishes a robust empirical foundation for sustainable educational transformation while acknowledging important limitations and identifying critical areas for future research. The 24-month observation period, although substantial, may not fully capture long-term sustainability dynamics, such as major technology refresh cycles or generational shifts in environmental conditions, which could alter the relative advantages of different approaches. Future research should pursue extended longitudinal investigations tracking student cohorts through complete educational cycles, examining how early exposure to sustainable learning environments influences long-term environmental behaviors and career choices. Additionally, the emergence of artificial intelligence and edge computing technologies presents both opportunities and challenges for educational sustainability that warrant careful investigation, particularly regarding their potential to personalize learning while minimizing resource consumption. Despite these limitations, this study provides actionable evidence that sustainable digital transformation in geography education is not only possible but can enhance rather than compromise educational outcomes, offering hope for achieving quality education within planetary boundaries.