Is open, distance, and digital education (ODDE) good for the environment? A systematic review of carbon footprint studies

Olaf Zawacki-Richter; Berrin Cefa

doi:10.24059/olj.v30i3.5370

Authors

Olaf Zawacki-Richter Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1482-8303
Berrin Cefa Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8306-8574

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v30i3.5370

Keywords:

Open, distance, and digital education, ODDE, Sustainability, Carbon footprint, Greenhouse gas emissions, Systematic review

Abstract

This study presents a systematic review of research on the environmental sustainability of Open, Distance, and Digital Education (ODDE), focusing on its carbon footprint. Although higher education institutions (HEIs) are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the environmental impacts of teaching and learning modes remain underexplored compared to campus operations. To address this gap, 17 studies published between 2002 and 2025 were examined. The evidence shows that ODDE typically generates far lower emissions than campus-based education, mainly through reduced travel and campus energy use and the benefits of centralized delivery. Landmark studies reported reductions of more than 80% compared to face-to-face teaching. Studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic confirmed significant savings but also highlighted rebound effects, as household energy use increased while campus facilities continued to consume resources. Emerging technologies, particularly generative AI, further complicate the picture due to their high energy demands. Overall, the evidence suggests that ODDE can contribute positively to reducing the carbon footprint of higher education. However, the small number of studies, lack of standardized methodologies for carbon footprint assessment (CFA), and limited attention to rebound effects constrain broader generalizability. Future research should systematically compare different delivery models across diverse institutional contexts and develop shared CFA guidelines. Strengthening the sustainability profile of ODDE is of critical importance, not only for the higher education sector but also for advancing global climate goals.

References

Alvarez-Risco, A., Muthu, S. S., & Del-Aguila-Arcentales, S. (Eds.). (2022). Circular economy: Impact on carbon and water footprint. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0549-0

Basheer, N., Ahmed, V., Bahroun, Z., & Anane, C. (2024). Exploring sustainability assessment practices in higher education: A comprehensive review through content and bibliometric analyses. Sustainability, 16(13), 5799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135799

Bozkurt, A. (2025). AI’s thirst, AI’s heat, AI’s waste: Exposing the hidden environmental impact of every artificial intelligence interaction. Open Praxis, 17(4), 638–647. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.4.1058

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future (p. 374). United Nations, World Commission on Environment and Development.

Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. (1993). Bias, prevalence and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(5), 423-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-v

*Caird, S., Lane, A., Swithenby, E., Roy, R., & Potter, S. (2015). Design of higher education teaching models and carbon impacts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2013-0065

*Campbell, J. E., & Campbell, D. E. (2011). Distance learning is good for the environment: Savings in greenhouse gas emissions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(4), 5–5.

*Carr, A., Modesto, S., Balasubramanian, K., Ortlieb, K., & Lesperance, J. (2019). Delivery mode and learner emissions: A comparative study from Botswana. Climate Change Management, 107–127.

Cefa, B., Macgilchrist, F., ElGamal, H., Bai, J. Y., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Loglo, F. S. (2025). Responses to the initial hype: ChatGPT supporting teaching, learning, and scholarship? Open Praxis, 17(2), 227-250. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.2.872

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

*Cortes, A., dos Muchangos, L., Tabornal, K. J., & Tolabing, H. D. (2022). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the carbon footprint of a Philippine university. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/acaa52

Crawford, K. (2024). Generative AI is guzzling water and energy. Nature, 626, 693.

Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

Findler, F., Schönherr, N., Lozano, R., Reider, D., & Martinuzzi, A. (2019). The impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development: A review and conceptualization. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2017-0114

Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619

*Filimonau, V., Archer, D., Bellamy, L., Smith, N., & Wintrip, R. (2021). The carbon footprint of a UK University during the COVID-19 lockdown. Science of the Total Environment, 756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143964

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd edition). SAGE.

*Gümrükçüoğlu Yiğit, M., & Şeneren, M. (2023). The effects of the Covid-19 period on carbon footprint in Sakarya University Esentepe Campus. Sakarya University Journal of Science, 27(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.16984/ saufenbilder.1113024

*Heller, R. F., Sun, Y.-Y., Guo, Z., & Malik, A. (2022). Impact on carbon emissions of online study for a cohort of overseas students: A retrospective cohort study. F1000Research, 10. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research .55156.5

*Herring, H., & Roy, R. (2002). Sustainable services, electronic education and the rebound effect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(5), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00026-4

*Jarillo, M. P., Pedraza, L., Ger, P. M., & Bocos, E. (2019). Challenges of online higher education in the face of the sustainability objectives of the united nations: Carbon footprint, accessibility and social inclusion. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(20). https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su11205580

Johnson, K., & Cefa, B. (2024). Oral histories and engaged perspectives: In conversation with Asha Kanwar. Journal of Open, Distance, and Digital Education, 1(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.25619/ CHFC1F44

Lane, A. (2025). What does open, distance, and digital education contribute to sustainability? Journal of Open, Distance, and Digital Education, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.25619/ MHSMZJ36

*Louw, T. (2022). Enablers and inhibitors of efforts to reduce Scope 3 emissions—The case of an ODeL university. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v18i1.1104

Ma, B., Bashir, M. F., Peng, X., Strielkowski, W., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2023). Analyzing research trends of universities’ carbon footprint: An integrated review. Gondwana Research, 121, 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.05.008

Macgilchrist, F. (2024). Technology, activism and living among planetary ruins. In H. Kminek, M. Singer-Brodowski, & V. Holz (Eds), Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung im Umbruch? (pp. 79–102). Verlag Barbara Budrich.

*May, R., Cox, V., Kroder, S., & Franklin, G. (2010). Measuring the environmental impact of online learning: Where do we start? Ubiquitous Learning, 2(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-9795/cgp/v02i02/40456

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339(jul21 1), b2535–b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application (pp. 3–22). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/ 978-3-658-27602-7

Nichols, M. (2024). We need to talk about how we talk about what we talk about: Revisiting ODL. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10911113

Paredes-Canencio, K. N., Lasso, A., Castrillon, R., Vidal-Medina, J. R., & Quispe, E. C. (2024). Carbon footprint of higher education institutions. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(12), 30239–30272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04596-4

*Patella, S. M., Olivieri, F. M., & Zamberlan, L. (2025). Online exams in higher education: A possible solution to avoid unnecessary car trips. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 19. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cstp.2024.101318

*Prasara-A, J., Bridhikitti, A., Srinon, M., Thuayjan, T., Ragsasilp, A., & Silalertruksa, T. (2024). Carbon footprint reduction measures for a higher educational institution: Lessons learned from COVID-19 Pandemic. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 111, 667–672. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET24111112

Qiu, Y., & Dong, Y. (2024). Life cycle assessment of campuses: A systematic review. Energy and Buildings, 319, 114455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114455

Randolph, J. J. (2005). Free-Marginal Multirater Kappa (multirater K [free]): An Alternative to Fleiss' Fixed-Marginal Multirater Kappa. Online submission.

*Roy, R., Potter, S., & Yarrow, K. (2008). Designing low carbon higher education systems: Environmental impacts of campus and distance learning systems. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(2), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810856279

*Salamena, D. P. J., Cong, Y., Lin, F., Ardisa, F., Novella, U., Kurosawa, T., Sako, M., Ohtani, Y., & Fujiyama, I. (2021). Changes in CO2 emissions in online student learning activities due to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia and Japan. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 933. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/933/1/012022

Selwyn, N. (2025). Digital degrowth—Radically rethinking our digital futures. Polity Press.

TGO. (2018). Carbon footprint assessment standards. Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization. https://www.tgo.or.th/2023/index.php/en/

Ubachs, G., Katajaaho, S., Aydin, C. H., Bozkurt, A., Lane, A., Mapar, M., Caeiro, S., Jensen-Lampiri, L., Karhunen, A., Helimo, U., Becker-Schröer, S., Gerstenmeier, A., & Goupilleau, A. (2024). Green Campus Initiatives in Online and Distance Higher Education. European Association of Distance Teaching Universities. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13944881

Umar, S. B., Ahmad, J., Bukhori, M. A. B. M., Mohd Ali, K. A., & Wan Hussain, W. M. H. (2024). A decade in review: Bibliometric analysis of sustainable performance trends in higher education institutes. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1433525. https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2024.1433525

Valls-Val, K., & Bovea, M. D. (2021). Carbon footprint in higher education institutions: A literature review and prospects for future research. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 23(9), 2523–2542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02180-2

Vanderbauwhede, W. (2021). Low carbon and sustainable computing. https://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/ ~wim// low-carbon-computing/

*Versteijlen, M., Salgado, F., Groesbeek, M., & Counotte, A. (2017). Pros and cons of online education as a measure to reduce carbon emissions in higher education in the NetherlandsPros and cons of online education as a measure to reduce carbon emissions in higher education in the Netherlands. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cosust.2017.09.004

WBCSD/WRI. (2015). The greenhouse gas protocol—A corporate accounting and reporting standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. https://ghgprotocol.org/ sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf

*Yin, Z., Jiang, X., Lin, S., & Liu, J. (2022). The impact of online education on carbon emissions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic – Taking Chinese universities as examples. Applied Energy, 314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118875

Zawacki-Richter, O., & Jung, I. (Eds.). (2023). Handbook of Open, Distance, and Digital Education. Springer. https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-981-19-0351-9

Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., & Buntins, K. (Eds.). (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Springer. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7