Towards a Hopeful Future: A

Literature Review of Gamified and

Game-Based Approaches in
Sustainability Education
Amal Fatemah
Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology
Lahti, Finland
[Link]@[Link]

Lobna Hassan, Mirva Hyypiä

Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology
Lahti, Finland
[Link]@[Link], [Link]@[Link]

ABSTRACT

As eco-anxiety and feelings of powerlessness intensify, sustainability education faces

the challenge of not only informing but also empowering individuals with the belief
that meaningful action is possible. This paper explores the role of gamification and
game-based learning in fostering hope and agency in the context of education for
sustainable development. Using Snyder’s Hope Theory as a guiding framework, the
literature review highlights how gamified and game-based interventions can
encourage goal-setting, pathway thinking and agency—key components for
sustaining engagement and inspiring action. A systematic review of literature from
2021 to September 2024 reveals that while existing approaches can effectively
enhance knowledge and short-term motivation, fewer interventions focus on long-
term behavioral change or developing competencies like systems thinking and
anticipatory skills. In conclusion, these findings point to the need for implementation
of more robust and longitudinal research to ensure that initial enthusiasm translates
into lasting contributions toward sustainability goals.

Keywords

gamification, game-based learning, sustainability education, agency

INTRODUCTION

Rising temperatures, declining biodiversity and increasing resource scarcity paint a

grim picture of the planet’s future. For many, particularly younger generations, these
crises evoke confusion, emotional overwhelm and powerlessness. The vastness of the
challenges often overshadows the perceived efficacy of personal actions, leaving
many feeling helpless. Terms such as eco-anxiety have emerged to describe the
chronic fear and hopelessness that arise when individuals feel powerless to address
the scale of these issues. Exposure to sensitive and often distressing information
about the state of the world exacerbates individuals' stress and lack of hope (Wamsler

Proceedings of Nordic DiGRA 2025: Hope – Envisioning the Future of Game Cultures

© 2025 Authors & Digital Games Research Association DiGRA. Personal and educational classroom use
of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author.
2020). The result is a troubling paradox: while sustainability education aims to inspire
positive change, it can inadvertently heighten feelings of inadequacy and paralysis,
particularly when it fails to offer tangible pathways for engagement. Amid this
context, the challenge is clear: how can sustainability education move beyond simply
raising awareness to cultivating a sense of constructive hope? A hope rooted not in
blind optimism but in meaningful action and achievable pathways.

Hope, as a concept, occupies a complex and sometimes contentious space in

discussions around sustainability and environmental education. It is often viewed as
a double-edged sword. Critics argue that hope may serve as an illusion—a comforting
but ultimately misleading emotion that fosters unrealistic optimism and potentially
reduces active engagement. On the other hand, hope can be a powerful motivator
when grounded in actionable pathways and personal or collective agency.

Drawing on Snyder's Hope Theory (Snyder 2000), hope can be understood as having
three core elements: goal-setting, which involves setting meaningful and positive
objectives; pathway thinking, which is the capacity to identify and develop strategies
to achieve those goals; and agency thinking, the motivational energy to pursue those
strategies despite obstacles.

Given the popularity of games across generations, particularly the young, gamification
is often posited as hope—an approach that may appeal to a wide audience and help
educate them on sustainability, increasing sustainable actions. While definitions of
gamification vary, in this research, we understand it as a design process that aims to
make engagement with non-game, and often non-engaging activities, such as learning
about sustainability, more engaging and game-like (Landers et al. 2018). Most often,
this may involve the use of game elements, such as badges and points (Deterding et
al. 2011), but we argue that gamification is more about user-centric design that
considers users' engagement needs and addresses them (Morschheuser et al. 2018).
Gamification can theoretically aid with the three components of Snyder's Hope
Theory (Hamari et al. 2018; Hassan and Leigh 2021; Loock et al. 2013). Through
gamified and game-based experiences, learners may gain both the motivation and
confidence to take meaningful action toward sustainability goals, transforming
awareness into tangible outcomes. By strengthening agency, individuals may
recognize their capacity to make a difference, turning feelings of helplessness into
proactive engagement. Ultimately, hope comes from action, and games may be a key
tool in enabling this shift from passive concern to active participation.

It has been debated (Hassan 2024), however, whether gamification truly represents
the hope for sustainability education some think it is. This paper presents a systematic
literature review that explores how the use of gamification and game-based
approaches in sustainability education can foster hope. The aim is to holistically
summarise the reported impact from use of gamification on sustainability education
and to identify areas requiring further research. While there have been previous
literature reviews on gamification and sustainability (Douglas and Brauer 2021;
Pineda-Martínez et al. 2023; Stanitsas et al. 2019), the uniqueness of this literature
review lies in its focus on summarizing reported outcomes across multiple dimensions
of sustainability and diverse educational and geographical contexts, rather than
simply focusing on environmental aspects, pro-environmental behaviors, higher
education or European settings. We also simultaneously examine gamification and
game-based approaches, rather than focusing on examining just one approach, given

2
that these approaches tend to be used interchangeably by researchers as they lack a
standardised definition (Hassan 2024).

BACKGROUND

Education for Sustainable Development

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations,
outlines 17 interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aimed at guiding
the transformation toward a sustainable society (UNESCO 2017). These goals address
three fundamental dimensions: economic, social and environmental. However, only
16 percent of the SDG targets are on track to be met globally by 2030, with the
remaining 84 percent showing limited progress or a reversal of progress (Sachs,
Lafortune, and Fuller 2024). As UN Secretary-General António Guterres aptly stated,
we are in a "battle for our lives," yet it still remains "a battle we can win" (UNESCO
2020).

Recognizing the pivotal role of education in driving sustainable development, UNESCO

has called for the global adoption of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
(UNESCO 2020). A framework for integrating sustainability principles and dimensions
into education, ESD aims to equip individuals with the knowledge, skills, values and
attitudes necessary to proactively address global challenges. Through interdisciplinary
and participatory learning approaches, ESD emphasizes the development of
competencies that empower learners to act as agents of change in addressing
sustainability challenges.

At its core, ESD emphasizes the development of three interconnected components:

cognitive (knowledge and understanding), affective (values and attitudes) and
behavioral (intentions and skills) (Czok et al. 2023). Within these domains, ESD
emphasizes the cultivation of the following key competencies essential for navigating
the complexity and interconnectedness of sustainability issues (Wiek et al. 2011):

 Anticipatory Competence: Enabling learners to envision future scenarios and

prepare for uncertainties.
 Normative Competence: Encouraging engagement with ethical questions and
value-based decision-making.
 Systems Thinking: Promoting an understanding of the interdependencies
within social, economic and environmental systems.
 Strategic Competence: Supporting learners in designing and implementing
solutions to sustainability challenges.
 Collaboration and Communication: Building skills for cooperative problem-
solving and dialogue across diverse groups.

The conceptualizations of these competences in the ESD field vary from more
deterministic ones to more holistic ones. Sustainability competence is commonly
understood as a holistic, contextual and relational concept that is inherently emergent
(Wals 2015). It is emergent because a sustainable future cannot be precisely defined;
we can only identify what is unsustainable today. Confronted with this uncertainty,
complexity and magnitude, many grapple with eco-anxiety, helplessness and even
hopelessness, which can hinder their ability to translate knowledge and skills into
action. Scholars, therefore, suggest that in order to address these emotional barriers,
ESD must explicitly incorporate affective dimensions, particularly anticipatory

3
emotions like hope, as a means of fostering resilience, optimism and agency (Ojala
2017; Wals 2015).

Hope

It is first important to understand what ‘hope’ is. Psychological and philosophical

scholarship conceptualizes hope as a future-oriented mindset that integrates
cognitive, emotional and action-based elements (Lazarus 1991; Snyder 2000). Lazarus
(1991) associates hope with uncertainty, describing it as the desire for a specific goal
despite unfavorable odds. This aspect makes hope different from optimism and is why
hope is often regarded as a vital mechanism for navigating uncertainty, fostering
agency and mobilizing efforts toward addressing pressing global challenges, including
climate change and sustainability (Freire 1992; Ojala 2012).

However, hope has also been perceived as a way to escape from reality and
responsibility, leading to passivity and inaction. Addressing this concern, Snyder
(2000) proposed a theory that connected hope to action components. Snyder
conceptualizes hope as a cognitive process involving three interrelated components:
clearly defined goals, pathway thinking (the ability to identify strategies to achieve
these goals), and agency thinking (the motivational force to act on these pathways).
This theory positions hope as inherently linked to action, distinguishing it from related
concepts such as optimism or wishful thinking. Individuals high in hope, according to
Snyder, not only envision desirable futures but also actively navigate obstacles, adapt
to setbacks and sustain their efforts toward achieving their objectives (Snyder et al.
2002).

While this framework focuses primarily on individual goals, it offers a valuable lens for
understanding how hope can motivate action in broader societal contexts. In the
context of societal transformation, critical hope, as described by Freire (1992),
acknowledges the difficulties of the present while maintaining a belief in the
possibility of change. This form of hope balances negative emotions, such as worry
and fear, with a forward-looking perspective, motivating individuals to engage in
actions that challenge unsustainable systems. Empirical studies support the idea that
hope and worry can coexist dialectically, driving engagement by combining emotional
investment in the present with optimism about the future (Ojala 2012). Similarly,
existential hope—a trust in humanity’s resilience and ingenuity—provides a
foundation for more actionable forms of hope, although it risks becoming passive
unless coupled with critical reflection and agency (Webb 2007).

Agency, defined as the belief in one’s capacity to influence outcomes, is central to

connecting hope to meaningful action. In sustainability education, cultivating agency
is vital for empowering individuals to address complex challenges like climate change.
Agency develops through mastery experiences, where individuals engage in tasks that
challenge them and experience success, as well as through social support and
opportunities for meaningful action (Bandura 1997). Social support and opportunities
to act meaningfully further reinforce this sense of efficacy, encouraging individuals to
persist even in the face of setbacks. Importantly, pathways toward hope must remain
concrete and achievable. Unrealistic or overly abstract visions of the future risk
undermining motivation, leading to disengagement and cynicism (Hicks 2014;
Oettingen 2012).

4
METHODOLOGY

This review adopts a systematic approach similar to that adopted by Hassan and
Hamari (2020) to investigate the integration of gamification and game-based methods
in sustainability education. The literature search was conducted in September 2024.
An initial exploratory phase was undertaken to identify and refine potential keywords
for the search strategy. As with any literature review, no keyword selection could
guarantee exhaustive results. The search query ultimately employed was: (sustainab*
OR environmental*) AND (educat* OR learn* OR teach*) AND (gamification OR
serious game* OR video game* OR storification OR board game* OR game-based*).

These keywords were selected to reflect both the broad spectrum of sustainability
related education practices and the diverse terminology associated with game-based
learning approaches. The keyword “environmental” was included to account for the
frequent conflation of sustainability with environmental concerns in academic
discourse, thereby ensuring comprehensive coverage of studies that address
sustainability through purely an environmental lens.

The search was conducted across three major academic databases: Scopus, Web of
Science and PubMed. These were chosen for their comprehensive coverage of
interdisciplinary research, particularly in the fields of education, psychology,
environmental studies and health related behavior change. The initial search yielded
2,738 records. After removing duplicates (403), the titles and abstracts of the
remaining 2,335 records were screened resulting in 496 papers for full-text
consideration. The inclusion criteria focused on studies that (1) explicitly addressed
gamification or game-based learning; (2) engaged with sustainability education
contexts; and (3) reported learning outcomes, impacts or indicators of cognitive,
emotional or behavioral change, including the development of key ESD competencies.

Papers were excluded if they were literature reviews, written in a language other than
English, or focused solely on describing game development processes without
reporting on educational implementation or outcomes. The review coding is still
ongoing with the current insights drawn from a systematically analyzed subset of 86
papers published between January 2021 and October 2024. Of the 496 papers
selected for full-text review, these 86 papers were the ones that had been fully
screened, read and coded at the time of writing. These formed the analytical base for
this paper and were considered sufficiently diverse in topic, context and methodology
to offer meaningful insights into current trends and gaps. Data coding followed a
deductive approach and focused on examining how the studies align with
sustainability education goals outlined in the ESD framework (Wiek et al. 2011), as
well as game types, target audiences, educational contexts, and reported outcomes.
Thematic synthesis was further employed to identify patterns and gaps within the
literature. During this process, themes of agency and hope emerged from the data.
These emergent themes were then explored in greater depth. To guide this
exploration, Snyder’s hope theory (Snyder 2000) was applied as an interpretive lens
to explore how the interventions foster elements of hopeful thinking. Coding, at this
stage, has been done by the lead author, with discussions over unclear cases with the
co-authors where needed.

5
FINDINGS

This section presents the key findings. The review examined the types of game terms
employed, the mechanics that drive engagement and the learning outcomes
achieved. It also examines the competencies these interventions aim to develop and
the SDGs addressed. Additionally, the review considers the intended impacts of these
initiatives and the sustainability dimensions that are prioritized. In addition, the
analysis also identifies how elements of hopeful thinking, as framed by Snyder’s Hope
Theory (2000), are reflected in the reviewed studies.

Figure 1: Distribution of interventions/terms found in the literature

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of intervention types in the reviewed studies. The
results indicate a preference for digital and board games, which constitute 32% and
29% of the interventions, respectively. This near-equal representation indicates a
balance between technological and analog interventions. Gamified approaches
accounted for 13% of interventions, reflecting a growing trend toward embedding
engagement-driven elements into traditional learning frameworks. Augmented
reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) made up 7% and 6%, respectively.

The significant presence of board games emphasizes their unique value in fostering
interpersonal skills and promoting communication—critical elements in sustainability
education. With board games, participants engage in both human-to-human
interactions and human-to-environment interactions. By encouraging face-to-face
interaction and collaborative problem-solving, board games create social learning
environments that drive engagement and enhance understanding (Manshoven and
Gillabel 2021; Scurati et al. 2022). This hands-on, low-tech approach not only supports
contexts with limited technological access but also leverages social dynamics to
reinforce learning outcomes. Digital games, on the other hand, offer scalability,
accessibility and the ability to simulate complex sustainability scenarios (Scurati et al.
2022). In addition, both digital games and VR have been shown to foster nature
connectedness and relatedness, potentially helping players form emotional ties to
natural environments (Avcu and Yaman 2024; Spangenberger et al. 2022).

6
 Figure 2: Outcomes reported in the literature

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of learning outcomes across the reviewed studies,
revealing a predominant focus on Knowledge and Awareness, which appears as the
most frequently targeted outcome. This indicates that the primary goal of many
gamified and game-based sustainability interventions is to enhance learners'
understanding of sustainability concepts, challenges and potential solutions. Given
the multifaceted nature of sustainability issues, emphasizing foundational knowledge
is essential for equipping participants with the necessary information to make
informed, responsible decisions. Moreover, such cognitive outcomes can serve as an
important starting point in the formation of hope, as they can help learners articulate
clear sustainability goals and begin to imagine actionable pathways toward them.

Following this, Motivation and Engagement emerges as the second most targeted
outcome, reflecting the dual objective of not only informing learners but also inspiring
active interest and involvement. This aligns with the core purpose of gamification,
which often leverages motivational elements to increase participants' investment in
the learning process. Interventions that effectively cultivate motivation and emotional
engagement can help lay the groundwork for constructive hope, by strengthening the
affective and agentic basis through which learners can come to see themselves as
capable of pursuing meaningful sustainability goals.

Attitudinal Development ranks third, pointing to the efforts to shape mindsets,

internalized values and dispositions that support sustainable behaviors. This suggests
that gamified and game based interventions in sustainability education extend
beyond knowledge transmission, aiming to instill pro-environmental attitudes that
can drive long-term change.

By contrast, Behavior Change and Action and Behavioral Intention are among the least
frequently targeted outcomes, reflecting the persistent challenge of translating
awareness and attitude shifts into concrete, sustainable actions. While building
knowledge and fostering engagement are important precursors, supporting learners
in moving from intention to action often requires development of both individual and
collective agency, along with opportunities to explore viable strategies for change.
Although many interventions help articulate sustainability goals and stimulate
emotional investment, fewer extend this trajectory by reinforcing the cognitive and

7
strategic tools learners need to envision and pursue actionable pathways. This gap
may reflect the complexity of designing for and measuring long-term behavioral
outcomes. As a result, the pathway from hopeful thinking to sustained behavioral
engagement remains underrepresented within the reviewed literature.

Figure 3: Sustainability competences targeted in the literature

Figure 3 presents the distribution of competencies targeted in the reviewed studies,

categorized according to the framework proposed by Wiek et al. (2011). The results
reveal a pronounced emphasis on collaboration and communication, reflecting the
importance of interpersonal skills. This focus reflects the recognition that addressing
sustainability challenges often requires collective action and effective stakeholder
engagement. These can help cultivate a sense of collective agency, where learners
come to see themselves as capable of effecting change through shared effort.

Normative competence also features prominently, highlighting the role of ethical

reflection and value-driven decision-making in sustainability education. The
prioritization of these competencies suggests that many interventions aim to cultivate
learners' ability to navigate the moral and ethical complexities inherent in
sustainability issues.

In contrast, strategic competence and anticipatory competence receive comparatively

less attention, suggesting that many interventions do not fully engage with the skills
needed to plan for and envision long-term sustainability pathways. These
competencies are important for helping learners identify realistic routes toward
desired outcomes and adjust their strategies in response to emerging challenges.
Their underrepresentation suggests that while learners may be encouraged to commit
to sustainability values, they may not be equally supported in developing the cognitive
tools required to navigate complex or uncertain pathways toward those goals.

Systems thinking emerged as the least targeted competence. This points to a gap in
supporting learners’ understanding of interconnectedness and their capacity to
perceive interdependencies and complex causal relationships. Without this
perspective, it can be more difficult for individuals to identify where and how action
is possible.

8
 Figure 4: SDG goals addressed in the literature

Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the SDGs targeted by the interventions. The data
reveals that SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) is the most frequently
addressed. This strong emphasis reflects the growing recognition of the need to foster
sustainable consumption patterns and advance circular economy practices. SDG 13
(Climate Action) follows closely, demonstrating the critical role of environmental
education in raising awareness and driving action on climate-related challenges. SDG
11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 15 (Life on Land) also feature
prominently, illustrating the contribution of gamified and game based learning to
urban sustainability initiatives and biodiversity conservation.

Conversely, SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) is targeted by only one
intervention, reflecting limited engagement with governance and institutional
dimensions. Similarly, goals such as SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 4
(Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)
receive less focus, with just three interventions each.

This distribution reveals a prevailing concentration on environmental aspects of

sustainability, with comparatively less attention directed toward social equity and
institutional strengthening. This trend is echoed in the data presented in Figure 5,
which shows that 55% of the reviewed studies prioritized ecological concerns over
other dimensions. This highlights the urgency of addressing ecological challenges,
such as climate change and resource depletion, within sustainability education. The
social dimension is emphasized in 24% of the interventions. In contrast, the economic
dimension receives attention in 22% of interventions, suggesting that while topics
such as resource efficiency and the circular economy are addressed, they remain
secondary to environmental and social priorities.

9
 Figure 5: General focus of the reviewed literature

While environmental issues often serve as tangible and immediate entry points for
engagement, the limited integration of social and economic dimensions suggests
missed opportunities to cultivate more holistic understandings of sustainability.
Broadening the focus to include these often-overlooked aspects can provide learners
with a wider array of entry points and action possibilities, enabling them to relate
sustainability challenges to their own contexts and concerns. This inclusive framing
not only deepens understanding of the interconnected nature of sustainability but
also promotes multiple routes to meaningful impact. In doing so, such interventions
have the potential to strengthen pathways thinking and reinforce learners’ sense of
agency, thereby supporting the belief that diverse, collaborative and context-specific
forms of action are both necessary and achievable for advancing sustainability goals.

Figure 6: Temporal focus of the reviewed studies

Figure 6 illustrates that the majority of the interventions (93%) predominantly

emphasize short-term impacts, focusing on immediate behavioral shifts, engagement
and knowledge acquisition. This trend suggests that while these interventions are
successful in fostering initial awareness and promoting pro-environmental behaviors,
there is comparatively less attention given to assessing or fostering long-term,
sustained change. This can make it more difficult for learners to imagine continuity
between present actions and future outcomes. Without reinforcing longer term

10
orientation, the development of hopeful thinking, especially the capacity to chart
pathways forward, may remain underdeveloped.

DISCUSSION

Amidst the global sustainability challenges and mounting uncertainty, hope is more
important than ever. It can provide the motivation to act, even in the face of
overwhelming difficulties (Pharris 2024). While systemic issues may seem beyond the
control of any single person, individuals and communities can still contribute to
meaningful change. Games and gamification, as tools for education and engagement,
can play a significant role in this process. Through their interactive and immersive
nature, they empower individuals to make decisions, collaborate and experience the
impact of their choices in a controlled environment. At the same time, they foster a
sense of agency and collective responsibility (Canossa et al. 2022; Cid et al. 2024; Novo
et al. 2024). This discussion will examine how games and gamification can support
sustainability efforts, utilizing Snyder’s Hope Theory to analyze how these methods
can cultivate pathways thinking, agency and collective action.

Goal-Setting

Snyder’s (2000) theory begins with goal-setting. Clear, meaningful goals provide
direction, transform abstract challenges into tangible targets and inspire action. This
principle is directly mirrored in games, where goal-setting is a core mechanic (Salen
Tekinbaş and Zimmerman 2003). Games motivate players by presenting achievable
objectives, fostering a sense of progression and purpose, and enabling them to
connect their actions to meaningful outcomes. This also reflects the core tenets of
Goal-Setting Theory, which demonstrates that specific, challenging goals enhance
motivation and performance (Locke and Latham 1990).

Goal-setting can also be understood as a behavioral nudge— a subtle intervention

that shapes decision-making environments to encourage desired actions without
limiting individual autonomy. Goals act as psychological anchors that serve as
reference points, activating cognitive mechanisms like loss aversion, which motivates
individuals to sustain effort and persist in goal-directed behavior. Research suggests
that while nudges and similar interventions may not significantly enhance
environmental knowledge, they effectively promote pro-environmental behaviors at
low implementation costs (Kurokawa et al. 2023).

Our findings indicate that knowledge and awareness were the most frequently
targeted outcomes across the reviewed interventions. This emphasis plays a crucial
role in goal-setting and hopeful thinking, as it allows learners to define and refine their
goals and envision viable sustainability outcomes. As Snyder (2000) argues, high-hope
individuals tend to set more specific and meaningful goals, while vague goals are less
likely to be pursued effectively. Providing learners with foundational knowledge helps
them clarify what sustainability challenges exist and what is at stake. Thus, knowledge
acquisition not only builds literacy but also helps learners form concrete, purposeful
sustainability goals.

Similarly, in the context of gamification and game-based applications, clear goals are
some of the key aspects that help users attain their desired goals from using an
intervention (Hamari et al. 2018). We found that a lot of the reviewed interventions,
if not all, leverage goal-setting to engage learners with global sustainability challenges,

11
aligning their efforts with specific SDGs. By linking in-game goals to these real-world
objectives, such tools encourage learners to internalize sustainability concepts and
envision actionable solutions (Monteiro and Sousa 2024; Novo et al. 2024). For
example, research on energy conservation demonstrates that students who set higher
goals show significantly greater awareness of energy-saving behaviors one month
later compared to those who did not (Igei et al. 2024). However, most of the studies,
as presented in figure 6, reported on short-term impacts of the interventions, leaving
open questions on the long-term. Based on that, we call upon researchers to conduct
studies that evaluate how users perform long term in reference to the goals set by the
interventions. It is important to understand the extent to which behaviors remain
aligned with the set goals, how phrasing of goals influences long-term adherence, and
if there are personal differences based on, for example, demographics.

Pathway Thinking

While goal-setting provides important direction and focus, it does not guarantee that
individuals will know how to reach their objectives. As discussed previously,
knowledge and awareness are frequently targeted outcomes, and they can play a
crucial role in initiating hopeful thinking. However, knowledge alone is insufficient.
For goals to translate into meaningful action, learners must also be equipped with the
cognitive tools and strategies necessary to chart realistic pathways forward. This is
where pathway thinking becomes essential. According to Snyder (2000), pathway
thinking reflects the perceived capacity to identify and navigate multiple routes
toward desired goals. Yet, our findings revealed that strategic and anticipatory
competences, were among the least frequently addressed in the reviewed
interventions. Strategic competence involves planning and problem-solving through
critical thinking and adaptive reasoning, while anticipatory competence draws on
creativity, foresight and long-term planning to envision and prepare for future
scenarios. These competences are vital for helping learners plan for uncertainty,
consider alternative strategies and revise approaches as conditions evolve. Their
underrepresentation suggests that while learners may be encouraged to commit to
sustainability goals, they are often not supported in building the mental flexibility
needed to act under complex or shifting circumstances.

The literature reinforces this challenge. This "knowledge-action-gap" has been a

recurring theme in the literature on gamification in sustainability education (Muenz
et al. 2023). This gap can be attributed to two key factors: a lack of clarity on
actionable steps (pathway thinking) and skepticism about the efficacy of individual
contributions (agency thinking). The challenges can be narrowed down to the fact that
the impacts of one’s actions on the environment are hardly visible or experienced
immediately (Fauville et al. 2020). To help address the knowledge-action-gap, video
games have emerged as innovative tools for effective climate communication. The
narrative elements in them have proven to be significant predictors of pro
environmental cognitive attitudes, showcasing their interactive and persuasive
features in the context of climate communication (Daiiani et al. 2024). Moreover, due
to the affordances of presence and immersion, VR experiences have been shown to
help overcome these challenges (Fauville et al. 2020; Xiong et al. 2024).

These tools are especially relevant given the nature of sustainability crises, such as
climate change, which are often characterized as 'wicked' problems. These problems
are marked by complexity, ambiguity, and unpredictability and defy easy solutions.
Effective decision-making in these contexts often requires strategies that can adapt

12
to uncertainty and provide pathways forward despite incomplete information.
Serious games, or more full-fledged narrative-based interventions, may offer a
solution as they share a number of common characteristics with games, including the
ability to capture complexity, to highlight the importance of effective communication
and to provide space for reflexive learning, collaboration and dialogue. Quantitative
and qualitative findings reveal how games designed with simulated scenarios enhance
students’ understanding of uncertainty and robust decision-making (Webber and Ozis
2024).

By framing uncertainty as an integral aspect of sustainability challenges rather than a

limitation, serious games and narrative-based intervention can help build
competencies to promote pathways thinking. Students may be able to develop
strategies despite incomplete information, building resilience and a nuanced
perspective on decision-making under uncertainty. This approach integrates cognitive
understanding with experiential learning, enabling students to translate awareness
into meaningful action and may be better suited to the task of sustainability education
that translates into action.

Another significant gap in the reviewed literature concerns systems thinking, which
emerged as the least frequently targeted competence across the interventions.
Systems thinking equips learners to understand sustainability not as a set of isolated
issues but as a complex, interdependent system of environmental, social and
economic factors. It enables individuals to identify feedback loops, cascading effects
and the broader implications of their actions. As reflected in the data collected from
the reviewed studies, sustainability is often primarily associated with environmental
issues, with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 13 (Climate
Action) being the most commonly targeted areas. However, sustainability is a multi-
dimensional concept, encompassing not only the environmental but also the social
and economic aspects, all of which are interconnected. A systems thinking approach
invites learners to explore these interconnections. Several studies in our review
showed how gamified learning tools can help participants recognize these
interconnections, encouraging them to consider the broader impacts of their actions
(Canossa et al. 2022; Jain et al. 2022; Kioupi et al. 2022; Muenz et al. 2023). Despite
these promising examples, the limited attention to social and economic sustainability
in current interventions reflects a missed opportunity. Without the ability to see how
different dimensions interact, learners may struggle to envision holistic solutions or
recognize the full scope of their agency. Designing more complex and nuanced
narratives is therefore necessary to approach sustainability on all dimensions. By
engaging with complex sustainability challenges, players are prompted to see how
changes in one dimension can ripple through others, both positively and negatively,
thus helping them envision practical pathways that integrate all three dimensions of
sustainability (Jain et al. 2022). We therefore call upon researchers to expand their
investigations into the social, economic and other underexplored dimensions of
sustainability, while more deliberately integrating systems thinking into game design
to enhance learners’ capacity to perceive and navigate the complex
interdependencies that characterize sustainability challenges.

Agency Thinking

Games that provide participants with the “right answers” tend to be less effective in
learning since they limit the opportunity for personal discovery. In contrast, games
that emphasize an open discovery process, where players face dilemmas and

13
challenges, allow for experimentation with various strategies (Andreoni and Richard
2023; Czok et al. 2023). By learning from both successes and failures, players gain
experiential knowledge of real-world sustainability issues and possible paths forward
(Andreoni and Richard 2023). This process strengthens the concept of agency, which
is the belief that one can make a meaningful impact. When learners are given the
autonomy to navigate decisions and explore alternative pathways, their sense of
agency increases. Indeed, our review showed that perceived autonomy has been
identified as a key contributor to Behavioral Intention to Learn (BIL), particularly when
mediated by autonomous motivation and preferred learning modalities (Xiong et al.
2024). This sense of autonomy and agency often then extends beyond the virtual
world, inspiring players to take tangible steps toward sustainability in their own lives
(Hoffmann and Pfeiffer 2022).

Specific game mechanics are instrumental in fostering agency. Choice-based decision-

making, where players’ decisions influence the game’s trajectory, provides players
with a sense of control (Toprac 2013). Reviewed studies show that this perceived
control was associated with the development of psychological ownership, which in
turn influenced how learners valued and engaged with sustainability content (Zhang
2024). Notably, even simple choice mechanics, such as avatar selection, task choice
or personal goal-setting, contributed to this effect by strengthening players’
connection to their progress and outcomes (Zhang 2024). For instance, one study
found that when students could choose which SDG-related questions to explore, they
reported greater enjoyment, increased awareness, and higher engagement
throughout gameplay (Leung et al. 2021).

In addition, feedback loops, such as consequences of player actions and real-time

environment changes, reinforce the impact of individual decisions, encouraging
players to recognize the significance of their choices (Hassan et al. 2019; Salen
Tekinbaş and Zimmerman 2003). As seen in the reviewed studies, reflective elements,
such as post-session debriefs or in-game prompts, can enhance this process, helping
players develop metacognitive awareness of their decisions and build confidence in
their capacity to act (Alp et al. 2024).

As mentioned previously, a key challenge in sustainability education is that individual

actions often do not produce immediate or visible effects, leading to feelings of
helplessness. Here, the concept of collective agency becomes crucial. Collaboration is
central to addressing complex sustainability issues, as solutions often require the
input and cooperation of multiple stakeholders. Games that incorporate collaborative
mechanics, such as team-based challenges and cooperative goal-setting, are
particularly effective in cultivating this competency. Data collected for this review
indicates that collaboration is not just a key learner outcome targeted but also the
competency most often addressed in sustainability-focused games.

Games that integrate collaborative mechanics not only enhance individual agency but
also strengthen collective agency. Through team-based problem-solving and shared
decision-making, players experience the interconnectedness of their actions within a
group context. By providing real-time feedback on group progress, these games
reinforce the importance of cooperative action, allowing players to recognize how
collective efforts lead to more effective sustainability outcomes.

Importantly, both individual and collective forms of agency are closely linked to
motivation and emotional engagement, which emerged as the second most

14
commonly targeted learning outcomes across the reviewed studies. Games that
incorporate meaningful choices, responsive systems, and visible consequences can
enhance intrinsic motivation by supporting learners’ psychological needs for
autonomy, competence and relatedness (Rigby and Ryan 2011; Ryan and Deci 2000).
When learners perceive their decisions as impactful and relevant, they become more
emotionally invested in the learning process. This affective engagement helps
cultivate constructive hope by allowing learners to envision themselves as capable of
contributing to sustainability transformations (Ojala 2012). In turn, this belief in one’s
efficacy can serve as a powerful driver of sustained engagement and action beyond
the game.

Emotional Dimension

While anxiety was a foreseen emotion, anger emerged as an unexpected yet recurring
theme across multiple papers reviewed (Alp et al. 2024; Bekoum Essokolo and Robinot
2022; Webber and Ozis 2024), often triggered by environmental injustices. Individuals
may become overwhelmed by feelings of helplessness or channel their anger into
unconstructive actions. While anger can serve as a powerful motivator, driving
individuals to take action and increase engagement, it also has potential drawbacks.
If not managed effectively, anger can lead to disengagement, frustration, or even
counterproductive behavior. Such anger is, however, a natural and understandable
response to the current state of the planet.

A contributing factor to these emotional responses is the tendency of individuals to

view the problem of unsustainability as primarily a technical challenge, often placing
their hope in the creation or development of a new technology as a solution (Monteiro
and Sousa 2024; Ojala 2017). However, single minded focus on the technical point of
view not only drives consumption but also results in lack of empathy and overlooks
the broader systemic, social and ethical dimensions of sustainability challenges. True
environmental sensitivity extends beyond knowledge of ecological issues; it requires
an emotional connection, as sensitivity reflects a certain level of empathy (Bekoum
Essokolo and Robinot 2022). Empathy plays a crucial role in fostering sustainable
attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors, suggesting that cultivating empathy can
drive more autonomous and enduring environmental action (Kurokawa et al. 2023).

Gamified approaches that incorporate scenario-based learning and collaboration

have been shown to stimulate empathy towards nature, cultivate creativity and
promote the meaningful exploration of environmental issues (Tramonti et al. 2024).
Incorporating narratives, role play and team collaboration in pedagogical practice
allows the use of imagination, enabling students to not just imagine new possible
futures but more importantly put themselves in the shoes of others (Monteiro and
Sousa 2024). For example, the Blue Gold (Rodríguez et al. 2024) role-playing game
immerses participants in the lived experiences of characters affected by cobalt
mining, such as a Congolese child or an American consumer. This approach not only
deepens understanding of systemic injustices, like child labor and violence against
women, but also prompts behavioral shifts, as participants may reconsider their
consumption patterns, including delaying or refusing new purchases (Rodríguez et al.
2024). Embodying an archetypal character or the role of a stakeholder as part of a
teamwork assignment, provides individuals with an opportunity to view the world
through another perspective and set of lived experiences (Runnerstrom et al. 2024).
Interestingly, it has been observed that there is no significant difference between
roles but there is a very large gender effect (Rodríguez et al. 2024).

15
Incorporating real stakeholders into the classroom is often hindered by practical
challenges such as scheduling conflicts and time constraints. While virtual platforms
provide an alternative, coordinating meaningful stakeholder engagement remains a
complex endeavor. Role-playing games offer an elegant solution by emulating
stakeholder inclusion, allowing students to engage with critical perspectives and social
dynamics in a manageable and immersive format (Waeber et al. 2023).

CONCLUSION & MORE FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Viewing games and gamification through the lens of Snyder’s (2000) Hope Theory
reveals their potential as powerful tools for fostering agency, supporting goal-setting
and encouraging pathways thinking—key competencies for addressing sustainability
challenges.

This review contributes new insights by identifying specific design features that
support these processes. For instance, choice-based decision-making, meaningful
feedback and collaborative challenges were consistently linked with enhanced
motivation, perceived control and a stronger sense of agency. These findings offer
practical guidance for developers of educational games, suggesting that interventions
should deliberately incorporate autonomy-supportive mechanics, opportunities for
collective problem-solving and visible progress indicators to build both competence
and constructive hope.

However, the current body of research indicates areas for growth, particularly in
achieving a balanced focus across environmental, social and economic dimensions of
sustainability. A clear emphasis on environmental sustainability was observed, with
social and economic dimensions receiving comparatively less attention. This
imbalance highlights the need for a more integrated triple-bottom-line approach.
Additionally, the limited focus on systems thinking—a critical competency for
addressing the interconnections between ecological, social and economic factors—
reveals a gap in fostering holistic problem-solving skills. Future interventions should
embed systems thinking alongside economic literacy and social equity to cultivate
comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability.

Quasi-experimental designs emerged as the most prevalent research methodology in

our review of the literature. While this approach provides valuable insights, it is not
without its limitations. A key concern is the absence of a control or comparison group,
which prevents researchers from answering the critical question, "compared to
what?" (Chatpinyakoop et al. 2022). This limitation undermines the ability to directly
attribute observed changes to the intervention itself. Additionally, the lack of
randomization in quasi-experimental designs restricts the ability to draw definitive
causal conclusions regarding the effects of the treatment (Bilancini et al. 2023). These
methodological constraints indicate the need for more rigorous experimental
approaches to strengthen the validity, reliability and generalizability of findings in
sustainability education research.

Given the recurring theme of anger, future research should explore how to balance
emotional engagement with practical solutions to ensure that anger contributes
positively to long-term sustainability goals. Moreover, limited exploration of long-
term impacts points to a significant gap in promoting sustained behavioral and
attitudinal change. Longitudinal studies and phased interventions are necessary to
ensure that initial gains translate into lasting contributions toward sustainability goals.

16
By combining the motivational power of games with the psychological underpinnings
of hope, educators can cultivate learners who are not only informed but empowered
to take action. Through meaningful action, we move not just toward solutions, but
toward a hopeful future shaped by those willing to envision and work for it.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by the Finnish National Agency for Education.

REFERENCES

Alp, G., Bulunuz, N. and Baltacı, Ş. 2024. ‘Design and Use of a Mobile Game Developed
to Raise Environmental Awareness in Secondary Schools’. Journal of Qualitative
Research in Education 39. [Link]
Andreoni, V. and Richard, A. 2023. ‘Exploring the Interconnected Nature of the
Sustainable Development Goals: The 2030 SDGs Game as a Pedagogical Tool for
Interdisciplinary Education’. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education 25 (1): 21–42. [Link]
Avcu, Y. and Yaman, Y. 2024. ‘The Effect of Virtual Reality (VR) Settings on Nature
Relatedness and Attitudes Towards Environment in Gifted Students’. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, December. [Link]
024-10194-w.
Bandura, A. 1997. ‘Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control.’ W H Freeman/Times Books/
Henry Holt & Co.
Bekoum Essokolo and Robinot, E. 2022. ‘«Let’s Go Deep into the Game to Save Our
Planet!» How an Immersive and Educational Video Game Reduces Psychological
Distance and Raises Awareness’. Sustainability 14 (10): 5774.
[Link]
Bilancini, E., Boncinelli, L. and Di Paolo, R. 2023. ‘Game-Based Education Promotes
Practices Supporting Sustainable Water Use’. Ecological Economics 208
(June):107801. [Link]
Canossa, A., Lozano Angulo, A. and Laris Pardo, L. 2022. ‘Validating Learning Games, a
Case Study’. In HCI in Games, edited by Xiaowen Fang, 399–413. Cham: Springer
International Publishing. [Link]
Chatpinyakoop, C., Hallinger, P. and Showanasai, P. 2022. ‘Developing Capacities to
Lead Change for Sustainability: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Simulation-Based
Learning’. Sustainability 14 (17): 10563. [Link]
Cid, D., Souza Filho, F., Alves, R., Pontes Filho, J.D., Silva, D. and Martins, E. 2024.
‘Drought in Play: A Grounded Socio-Hydrological Tool to Increase Social
Participation in Drought Plans’. Journal of Hydrology 638 (July):131445.
[Link]
Czok, V., Krug, M., Müller, S., Huwer, J. and Weitzel, H. 2023. ‘Learning Effects of
Augmented Reality and Game-Based Learning for Science Teaching in Higher
Education in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development’.
Sustainability 15 (21): 15313. [Link]
Daiiani, M., Sweetser, P., Stanley, S., Caldwell, S. and Rooy, D. 2024. ‘Evaluating the
Impact of Gameful Design on Pro-Environmental Attitudes: Beyond Blue as

17
 Intervention’. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on the
Foundations of Digital Games, 1–13. FDG ’24. New York, NY, USA: Association for
Computing Machinery. [Link]
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. 2011. ‘From Game Design Elements
to Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”’. In Proceedings of the 15th International
Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9–15.
MindTrek ’11. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
[Link]
Douglas, B. D. and Brauer, M. 2021. ‘Gamification to Prevent Climate Change: A
Review of Games and Apps for Sustainability’. Current Opinion in Psychology,
Psychology of Climate Change (2021), 42 (December):89–94.
[Link]
Fauville, G., Queiroz, A. and Bailenson, J. 2020. ‘Chapter 5 - Virtual Reality as a
Promising Tool to Promote Climate Change Awareness’. In Technology and Health,
edited by Jihyun Kim and Hayeon Song, 91–108. Academic Press.
[Link]
Freire. 1992. ‘Pedagogy of Hope’. Bloomsbury.
Hamari, J., Hassan, L. and Dias, A. 2018. ‘Gamification, Quantified-Self or Social
Networking? Matching Users’ Goals with Motivational Technology’. User
Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 28 (1): 35–74.
[Link]
Hassan, L. 2024. ‘Gamification. A Conceptual Critique to Move Forwards’.
Gamevironments 20. [Link]
Hassan, L., Deterding, S., J. Harviainen, T. and Hamari, J. 2019. ‘Fighting Post-Truth
with Fiction: An Inquiry into Using Storification and Embodied Narratives for
Evidence-Based Civic Participation’. Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies 11
(1): 51–78. [Link]
Hassan, L., and Hamari, J. (2020). Gameful civic engagement: A review of the literature
on gamification of e-participation. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3),
101461. [Link]
Hassan, L. and Leigh, E. 2021. ‘Do You Have a Moment to Increase World Awesome?
Game-Based Engagement with Social Change’. In Transforming Society and
Organizations through Gamification: From the Sustainable Development Goals to
Inclusive Workplaces, edited by Agnessa Spanellis and J. Tuomas Harviainen, 49–
65. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Link]
68207-1_4.
Hicks, D. 2014. ‘Educating for Hope in Troubled Times: Climate Change and the
Transition to a Post-Carbon Future’. Trentham Books.
Hoffmann, G. and Pfeiffer, J. 2022. ‘Gameful Learning for a More Sustainable World’.
Business & Information Systems Engineering 64 (4): 459–82.
[Link]
Igei, K., Kurokawa, H., Iseki, M., Kitsuki, A., Kurita, K., Managi, S., Nakamuro, M. and
Sakano, A. 2024. ‘Synergistic Effects of Nudges and Boosts in Environmental
Education: Evidence from a Field Experiment’. Ecological Economics 224
(October):108279. [Link]

18
Jain, R., Joshi, R., Dwivedi, V., Senthil Kumar G, and Badami, V. 2022. ‘Gamification for
Teaching Sustainability to Engineering Students’. In 2022 IEEE Frontiers in
Education Conference (FIE). [Link]
Kioupi, V., Vakhitova, T. and Whalen, K. 2022. ‘Active Learning as Enabler of
Sustainability Learning Outcomes: Capturing the Perceptions of Learners during a
Materials Education Workshop’. MRS Energy & Sustainability 9 (1): 64–78.
[Link]
Kurokawa, H., Igei, K., Kitsuki, A., Kurita, K., Managi, S., Nakamuro, M. and Sakano, A.
2023. ‘Improvement Impact of Nudges Incorporated in Environmental Education
on Students’ Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors’. Journal of
Environmental Management 325 (January):116612.
[Link]
Landers, R., Auer, E., Collmus, A. and Armstrong, M. 2018. ‘Gamification Science, Its
History and Future: Definitions and a Research Agenda’. Simulation & Gaming 49
(3): 315–37. [Link]
Lazarus, R. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Leung, F. Y. W., Lau, M., Wan, K., Law, L., Kwong, T. and Wong, E. 2021. ‘Promoting
Students’ Global Perspectives Through a Gamified e-Learning Platform’. Frontiers
in Education 6 (September). [Link]
Locke and Latham. 1990. ‘A Theory of Goal-Setting & Task Performance.’
[Link]
Loock, Staake and Thiesse. 2013. ‘Motivating Energy-Efficient Behavior with Green Is:
An Investigation of Goal-Setting and the Role of Defaults’. MIS Q. 37 (4): 1313–32.
[Link]
Manshoven, S., and Gillabel, J. 2021. ‘Learning through Play: A Serious Game as a Tool
to Support Circular Economy Education and Business Model Innovation’.
Sustainability 13 (23): 13277. [Link]
Monteiro, F. and Sousa, A. 2024. ‘An Educational Board Game to Promote the
Engagement of Electric Engineering Students in Ethical Building of a Sustainable
and Fair Future’. The Journal of Environmental Education 55 (2): 138–52.
[Link]
Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K. and Hamari, J. 2018. ‘How to Design
Gamification? A Method for Engineering Gamified Software’. Information and
Software Technology 95. [Link]
Muenz, T., Schaal, S., Groß, J. and Paul, J. 2023. ‘How a Digital Educational Game Can
Promote Learning about Sustainability’. Science Education International 34 (4):
293–302.
Novo, C., Zanchetta, C., Goldmann, E. and De Carvalho, C.V. 2024. ‘The Use of
Gamification and Web-Based Apps for Sustainability Education’. Sustainability 16
(8): 3197. [Link]
Oettingen, G. 2012. ‘Future Thought and Behaviour Change’. European Review of
Social Psychology 23 (1): 1–63. [Link]
Ojala, M. 2012. ‘Regulating Worry, Promoting Hope: How Do Children, Adolescents,
and Young Adults Cope with Climate Change?’. International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, 7(4).

19
Ojala, M. 2017. ‘Hope and Anticipation in Education for a Sustainable Future’. Futures,
Learning the Future Otherwise: Emerging Approaches to Critical Anticipation in
Education, 94 (November):76–84. [Link]
Pharris, A. 2024. ‘The Protective Effects of Hope Training on the Human Service
Workforce Burnout and Secondary Traumatic Stress’. Human Service
Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance 0 (0): 1–12.
[Link]
Pineda-Martínez, M., Llanos-Ruiz, D., Puente-Torre, P. and García-Delgado, M. 2023.
‘Impact of Video Games, Gamification, and Game-Based Learning on Sustainability
Education in Higher Education’. Sustainability 15 (17): 13032.
[Link]
Rigby, S. and Ryan, R. 2011. ‘Glued to Games: How Video Games Draw Us In and Hold
Us Spellbound'. New Directions in Media. Bloomsbury Academic.
Rodríguez, N., Yebra, F., Dopico, A., Garcia-Vazquez, E. and Dopico, E. 2024. ‘Blue Gold,
Game-Based Learning to Encourage Sustainable Consumption: The Case of Mobile
Phones’. Sustainability 16 (2): 688. [Link]
Runnerstrom, M. G., Denaro, K. and DiVincenzo, J. 2024. ‘Exploring the Impact of
Gamified Role-Playing on Climate Change Knowledge and Nature Relatedness:
Evidence from an Online Undergraduate Course on Environmental Health’.
Sustainability 16 (11): 4484. [Link]
Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci. 2000. ‘Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of
Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being’. The American
Psychologist 55 (1): 68–78. [Link]
Sachs, Lafortune and Fuller. 2024. ‘The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future.
Sustainable Development Report 2024’.
Salen Tekinbaş, K. and Zimmerman, E. 2003. Rules of Play: Game Design
Fundamentals. The MIT Press.
Scurati, Giulia Wally, Johanna Wallin Nylander, Francesco Ferrise, and Marco Bertoni.
2022. ‘Sustainability Awareness in Engineering Design through Serious Gaming’.
Design Science 8:e12. [Link]
Snyder, C.R. 2000. ‘Genesis’. In Handbook of Hope, 25–38. Elsevier.
[Link]
Snyder, Rand and Sigmon. 2002. ‘Hope Theory: A Member of the Positive Psychology
Family.’ In . In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology.
Oxford University Press.
Spangenberger, P., Geiger, S.M. and Freytag, SC. 2022. ‘Becoming Nature: Effects of
Embodying a Tree in Immersive Virtual Reality on Nature Relatedness’. Scientific
Reports 12 (1): 1311. [Link]
Stanitsas, M., Kirytopoulos, K. and Vareilles, E. 2019. ‘Facilitating Sustainability
Transition through Serious Games: A Systematic Literature Review’. Journal of
Cleaner Production 208. [Link]
Toprac, P. 2013. ‘The Psychology of Control and Video Games’. In Ctrl-Alt-Play: Essays
on Control in Video Gaming. McFarland and Company.
Tramonti, M., Dochshanov, A.M., Fiadotau, M., Grönlund, M., Callaghan, P., Ailincai,
A., Marini, B., Joenvaara, S., Maurer, L., Delle Donne, E. 2024. ‘Game on for

20
 Climate Action: Big Game Delivers Engaging STEM Learning’. Education Sciences
14 (8): 893. [Link]
UNESCO. 2017. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives -
UNESCO Digital Library. [Link]
UNESCO. 2020. Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap.
[Link]
Waeber, P.O., Melnykovych, M., Riegel, E., Chongong, L.V., Lloren, R., Raher, J.,
Reibert, T., Zaheen, M., Soshenskyi, O., Garcia, C.A. 2023. ‘Fostering Innovation,
Transition, and the Reconstruction of Forestry: Critical Thinking and
Transdisciplinarity in Forest Education with Strategy Games’. Forests 14 (8): 1646.
[Link]
Wals, A. 2015. ‘Beyond Unreasonable Doubt. Education and Learning for Socio-
Ecological Sustainability in the Anthropocene’. Education and Learning Sciences.
Wamsler, C. 2020. ‘Education for Sustainability: Fostering a More Conscious Society
and Transformation towards Sustainability’. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education 21 (1): 112–30. [Link]
Webb, D. 2007. ‘Modes of Hoping’. History of the Human Sciences 20(3).
Webber, M. and Ozis, F. 2024. ‘Preparing the Next Generation of Engineers for
Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty: Exploring the Pedagogical Role of the
Decisions for the Decade Game’. 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L. and Redman, C.L. 2011. ‘Key Competencies in Sustainability:
A Reference Framework for Academic Program Development’. Sustainability
Science 6 (2): 203–18. [Link]
Xiong, S.R., Ho, S.S., Tan, W., Li, B.J. and Lisak, G. 2024. ‘Virtual Environment, Real
Impacts: A Self-Determination Perspective on the Use of Virtual Reality for Pro-
Environmental Behavior Interventions’. Environmental Communication 18 (5):
628–47. [Link]
Zhang, F. 2024. ‘Enhancing ESG Learning Outcomes through Gamification: An
Experimental Study’. PLOS ONE 19 (5): e0303259.
[Link]

21