Reframing the sustainability-quality trade-off: The role of social virtual reality in academic conferencing

Abstract

Academic on-site conferences are vital for scholarly exchange and knowledge advancement, yet they contribute significantly to environmental burdens. Considering global sustainability challenges and the limitations of videoconferencing, Social VR offers an immersive alternative that replicates physical conference settings and enables avatar-based interaction. While existing pilot studies have explored perceived benefits and limitations of Social VR, empirical research comparing conference formats with respect to ecological, social, and economic sustainability remains scarce. To address this gap, a mixed-methods study was conducted with participants (N = 32) of an academic conference held in a Social VR environment. Data was collected via questionnaires combining validated scales and open-ended items. Results show that 43.8% of participants preferred on-site conferences, 40.6% preferred Social VR, and only 15.6% favored videoconferencing. Reported advantages of Social VR included ecological and economic benefits with socially favorable interaction conditions. These included a stronger sense of presence, more inclusive participation, and greater comfort in communication than conventional videoconferencing. Overall, the findings indicate that Social VR is a promising intermediate option, combining ecological and economic advantages with socially acceptable interaction quality, while leaving specific gaps in informal networking and nonverbal richness to be addressed by future technological and organizational design.

Keywords

• Social Virtual Reality
• Academic Conferences
• Sustainability
• Interaction Quality

References

1. Ahn, S. J., Levy, L., Eden, A., Won, A. S., MacIntyre, B., & Johnsen, K. (2021). IEEEVR2020: Exploring the first steps toward standalone virtual conferences. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, 648575. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.648575
2. Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030
3. Bainbridge, W. S. (2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science, 317(5837), 472–476. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146938
4. Bonfert, M., Reinschluessel, A. V., Putze, S., Lai, Y., Alexandrovsky, D., Malaka, R., & Döring, T. (2023). “Seeing the faces is so important”: Experiences from online team meetings on commercial virtual reality platforms. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3, 945791. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.945791
5. Bourdieu, P. (1992). Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital [Economic Capital, Cultural Capital, Social Capital]. In P. Bourdieu, H. Beister, & B. Schwibs (Eds.), Die verborgenen Mechanismen der Macht [The Underlying Mechanisms of Power] (pp. 49–79). VSA.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1993). Über einige Eigenschaften von Feldern [On some properties of fields]. In P. Bourdieu, H. Beister, & B. Schwibs (Eds.), Soziologische Fragen [Sociological questions] (pp. 107–114). Suhrkamp.
7. Burtscher, L., Barret, D., Borkar, A. P., Grinberg, V., Jahnke, K., Kendrew, S., Maffey, G., & McCaughrean, M. J. (2020). The carbon footprint of large astronomy meetings. Nature Astronomy, 4(9), 823–825. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-020-1207-z
8. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage Publications.

9. Dyrna, J., Lorenz, R., Miranda, C. G., Heitz, R., & Köhler, T. (2023). Social VR as an approach to foster collaboration among scientists and educators within the networked infrastructure for education. E-Learning and Education (eleed), se2023, 1–20.
10. Estien, C. O., Myron, E. B., Oldfield, C. A., & Alwin, A. (2021). Virtual scientific conferences: Benefits and how to support underrepresented students. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 102(2), e01859. https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1859
11. Fauville, G., Luo, M., Queiroz, A. C. M., Lee, A., Bailenson, J. N., & Hancock, J. (2023). Video-conferencing usage dynamics and nonverbal mechanisms exacerbate Zoom fatigue, particularly for women. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 10, 100271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100271
12. Fischer, H., Arnold, M., Philippe, S., Dyrna, J., & Jung, S. (2021). VR-Based Learning and Teaching. A Framework for Implementation of Virtual Reality in Formal Education. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), INTED2021 Proceedings (S. 3304–3314). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2021.0694
13. Goffman, E. (1973). Interaktion: Spaß am Spiel. Rollendistanz [Interaction: The fun of the game. Role distance]. Piper.
14. Han, E., & Bailenson, J. (2024, May 22). Social Interaction in VR. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Retrieved 17 December 2025, from https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-1489.
15. Hansen, T. T., & Pedersen, D. (2018). The impact of academic events: A literature review. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy025
16. Hauss, K. (2019). Welche Rolle spielen Konferenzen in der Wissenschaft? Antworten aus der Perspektive von Nachwuchswissenschaftler*innen [What role do conferences play in science? Answers from the perspective of early-career researchers]. Die Hochschule: Journal für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 28(1), 42–51.
17. Hettlage, R. (2007). Erving Goffman. In D. Kaesler (Ed.), Klassiker der Soziologie. Von Talcott Parsons bis Anthony Giddens [Classics of sociology: From Talcott Parsons to Anthony Giddens] (pp. 197–215). C. H. Beck.
18. Hohlfeld, O., Guse, D., & De Moor, K. (2021). A questionnaire to assess virtual conference participation experience. In 2021 13th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (pp. 197–200). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX51781.2021.9465406
19. Holden, M. (2012). Urban policy engagement with social sustainability in metro Vancouver. Urban Studies, 49(3), 527-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/004209801140301
20. Howard, M. C., & Rose, J. C. (2019). Refining and extending task–technology fit theory: Creation of two task–technology fit scales and empirical clarification of the construct. Information & Management, 56(6), 103134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.12.002
21. Khosrawi-Rad, B., Rinn, H., Augenstein, D., Markgraf, D., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2023). Designing pedagogical conversational agents in virtual worlds. In R. Röpke & U. Schroeder (Eds.), 21. Fachtagung Bildungstechnologien (DELFI). Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. https://doi.org/10.18420/delfi2023-29
22. Kirchner, K., & Nordin Forsberg, B. (2021). A conference goes virtual: Lessons from creating a social event in the virtual reality. In U. R. Krieger, G. Eichler, C. Erfurth, & G. Fahrnberger (Eds.), Innovations for Community Services (pp. 123–134). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75004-6_9
23. Klöwer, M., Hopkins, D., Allen, M., & Higham, J. (2020). An analysis of ways to decarbonize conference travel after COVID-19. Nature, 583(7816), 356–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02057-2
24. Knoll, J. (1995). Kurs- und Seminarmethoden: Ein Trainingsbuch zur Gestaltung von Kursen und Seminaren, Arbeits- und Gesprächskreisen [Course and seminar methods: A training book for the design of courses, seminars, study, and discussion groups] (6th ed.). Beltz.
25. Kuckartz, U. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practice, computer assistance]. Beltz.
26. Leochico, C. F. D., Giusto, M. L. D., & Mitre, R. (2021). Impact of scientific conferences on climate change and how to make them eco-friendly and inclusive: A scoping review. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 4, 100042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100042
27. Li, K., Zhang, R., Chen, B., Chen, S., Yin, S., Mahmud, S., Hasan, T., & Zhang, C. (2024). GazeTrak: Exploring acoustic-based eye tracking on a glass frame. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (pp. 497–512). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3636534.3649376
28. Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2023). The theory of immersive collaborative learning (TICOL). Educational Psychology Review, 35, 103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09822-5
29. Merkel-Kiss, M., & Markgraf, D. (2025). Förderung der sozialen Integration im Fernstudium durch individualisierte online 3D Escape-Rooms [Promoting social integration in distance education through individualized online 3D escape rooms]. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik. https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-025-01162-y
30. Merkel-Kiss, M., Rinn, H., & Markgraf, D. (2024). Kommunikation in virtuellen Welten – Umsetzung eines Kommunikationsseminars in TriCAT Spaces® [Communication in virtual worlds – Implementation of a communication seminar in TriCAT Spaces®]. Gemeinschaften in Neuen Medien 2024.
31. Moreira, C., Simões, F. P. M., Lee, M. J. W., Zorzal, E. R., Lindeman, R. W., Pereira, J. M., Johnsen, K., & Jorge, J. (2023). Toward VR in VR: Assessing engagement and social interaction in a virtual conference. IEEE Access, 11, 1906–1922. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3233312
32. Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14, 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
33. Rinn, H., Merkel-Kiss, M., Robra-Bissantz, S., & Markgraf, D. (2023). Digital measures to decrease thesis procrastination in distance education. In Proceedings of the 2023 AIS SIGED International Conference on Information Systems Education and Research. Hyderabad.
34. Saeed, N., Yang, Y., & Sukunesan, S. (2008). Media richness and user acceptance of second life (Version 1). Swinburne. https://doi.org/10.25916/sut.26222327.v1
35. Santoso, M., Wang, P., Han, E., & Bailenson, J. N. (2025). Conversational Dynamics in Social Virtual Reality: A Large-Scale, Longitudinal Study of Speech Acts and Nonverbal Behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 108691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108691
36. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
37. Topp, K., Otto, S., & Schwanitz, V. J. (2024). The carbon footprint of travelling to international academic conferences and options to minimise it. Carbon Management, 15(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2024.2447454
38. United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. Oxford University Press. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf
39. Welch, C. J., Ray, S., Melendez, J., Fare, T., & Leach, M. (2010). Virtual conferences becoming a reality. Nature Chemistry, 2(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.556
40. Wolsko, C., Marino, E., Doherty, T. J., Fisher, S., Green, A. S., Goodwin, B., ... & Wirth, A. (2016). Systems of access: A multidisciplinary strategy for assessing the social dimensions of sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 12(1), 88-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2016.11908156
41. Zender, R., & Mulders, M. (2022). Wissenschaftliche Konferenzen in Social Virtual Reality [Academic conferences in social virtual reality]. E-Learning and Education (eleed), 14, 1–17.