Education for Sustainable Development (hereafter ESD) in the teaching of Geography within the Spanish context is a relatively recent approach—just over fifteen years in a strict sense, and slightly more than thirty in a broader sense (Crespo et al., 2021).

To understand the methodologies applied in teaching sustainability within geography education in Spain, the authors reviewed the proceedings of the Geography Didactics Conferences organized by the Geography Didactics Group of the Spanish Association of Geography (AGE) from 2011 to 2023. Some of these conferences included the Portuguese context, as they were jointly organized with the Associação de Professores de Geografia (APROFGEO). During this period, a total of 756 communications, presentations, and posters were produced. Focusing on the topic of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a keyword search for “sustainable,” “SDGs,” and “Agenda 2030” in titles and keywords yielded 66 relevant works—representing 8.7% of the total output over the past decade (Figure 1), with a noticeable increase since 2019.

In the same period and source, 108 works were identified on field trips, didactic itineraries, etc., of which 35 incorporated information and communication technologies or geographic information technologies, particularly Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Only seven studies explicitly linked fieldwork with ESD, and of these, four proposed the use of digital tools.

Bibliometric studies on evaluation in geography (Moya et al., 2021) and the assessment of field trips (Mateo, 2019; Ortega et al., 2023) highlight the scarcity of research in this area and, more significantly, the lack of evaluation criteria in geography didactic experiences and outputs.

Researchers from the University of Castilla-La Mancha conducted four of the seven studies. Jerez (2019) introduced the concept of “didactic hiking” as a teaching strategy for sustainable rural development, using both analog and digital cartographic materials (apps, viewers, etc.). Similarly, Villahermosa et al. (2021) designed an itinerary for 6th-grade students through the Navas de Malagón nature reserve. Serrano and Jerez (2021) compiled teaching experiences involving itineraries with university students from 2004 to 2019 in the Faculties of Education and Geography in Ciudad Real, analyzing the learning outcomes. Mateo and Rodríguez-Domenech (2023) focused on initial teacher training in ESD using geotechnologies.

Professor Boulahrouz from the Faculty of Education in Girona (2021) developed a didactic proposal in which students analyze their surrounding territory and identify “aspects affecting citizens’ quality of life, proposing improvements to share with the community,” using mobile devices and augmented reality.

Finally, Martínez and Yubero (2021) from the Complutense University of Madrid proposed fieldwork to train future primary teachers in sustainable urban tourism education. De Lázaro-Torres and Gómez (2023), from UNED and UCM respectively, investigated the training of Master’s students in Secondary Education and Primary Education undergraduates in ESD through virtual field trips and the use of geotechnologies.

To identify recurring concepts in these seven pioneering studies, the authors analyzed abstracts, keywords, and titles using Excel and the Pro-Word Cloud application (from a total of 1,574 words, the 100 most frequent were selected, excluding common words). Figure 2 shows the three most frequently used concepts in these early studies on field trips addressing environmental sustainability through geotechnologies: education, didactics, and itinerary. Other terms refer to the topics addressed: urban, rural, tourism, technologies, sustainable development, and sustainability. A final group of frequent words relates to the spatial scale of analysis: province or specific locations such as Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, or Malagón, indicating regional, provincial, or local scales.

The indirect approach taken by Martínez-Medina and Arrebola (2019), through the analysis of sustainability-related activities in Spanish primary education textbooks, reveals that, at least theoretically, students engage with some of these topics. However, the cognitive level is generally low and focused on issues such as environmental problems and recycling (Figure 3), which the authors consider clearly insufficient for effective ESD.

This conclusion supports the idea that while the elements constituting geographic competencies for sustainability are present in the curriculum, they are not adequately developed in textbooks (Granados, 2011; Rodríguez-Domenech, 2022).

It is worth clarifying that the types of activities these authors classify as focused on environmental problems include those related to resource overexploitation, pollution, etc. Examples of such activities might be “identifying different types of pollution (noise, light, water, etc.) in a set of images” or “encouraging students to reflect on the possible consequences of deforestation” (2019).

At the university level, particularly among Primary Education undergraduates, the topic has been explored by García et al. (2023) and Sánchez and Plaza (2023). The latter highlights the significant lack of understanding these future teachers have regarding the concept of sustainability. They report that only 13.9% of responses demonstrate scientific rigor, while 41.7% lack it entirely. In this case, the authors categorize the students’ definitions of sustainability as shown in Figure 4.

Both the textbook analysis and the university student concept analysis agree in emphasizing that environmental problem-related activities are the most commonly addressed in Primary Education (based on textbook programming), and that environmental concepts are the most frequently associated with sustainability by Primary Education students. Interestingly, while recycling activities are prominently featured in textbooks, they are scarcely mentioned in the students’ conceptualizations of sustainability.

The following two subsections analyze two key sources that provide essential topics for effective ESD: the school curriculum and the targets of SDG 11.

The studies conducted by Murga-Menoyo (2008) on the perceptions, values, and attitudes toward sustainable development among groups of high-achieving university students revealed a certain sensitivity to sustainability values. However, the author emphasized the need for a deeper understanding of the environmental crisis and its root causes, as well as the demands of a sustainable development model. Only by grounding this sensitivity in more robust scientific knowledge can it be translated into behaviors committed to the social transformation that sustainability requires.

Subsequent studies, such as that by Solís-Espallargas (2019), which examined the perceptions of master’s in education students regarding the SDGs, yielded similar results. These studies identified a lack of references to future scenario planning or critical thinking—both essential components of sustainability competencies (UNESCO, 2014; Murga-Menoyo & Bautista-Cerro, 2019). However, these investigations generally addressed sustainability perceptions at a global scale.

Few studies have explored perceptions on the local scale. One notable example is the research by Guerrero and López (2021), who examined how Primary Education students perceive sustainability in the city of Córdoba. They identified five key areas for analyzing sustainability: political and economic conditions, the renewable energy sector, waste treatment, green space planning, and air pollution. Based on this analysis, the students proposed sustainable actions at the local level. The study concluded that students are aware of the need to prepare themselves to address sustainability in their classrooms and to deepen their understanding of the problems and conflicts that such actions may generate.

To achieve the research objectives, a quasi-experimental study was conducted using a mixed methodology—both quantitative and qualitative. Specifically, a questionnaire was designed and implemented during a series of field trips across university campuses attended by participating students. The aim was to collect data aligned with the research objectives and to introduce students to the use of geotechnologies such as ArcGIS StoryMaps and Survey123 (ESRI).

A total of 1,069 students participated in the study. These included second-year students from the Primary Education Teaching Degree at a private university in Madrid (hereafter G1), fourth-year students from the same degree at a public university in Castilla-La Mancha (hereafter G2), and students from the Master’s Degree in Secondary Education Teacher Training, specializing in Geography and History, at a public university in Madrid (hereafter G3). All institutions and participants followed the same methodology and used the same digital tool to carry out the project during the 2022/23 academic year.

In the study, students from G1 and G3 participated in a guided field trip led by a professor, while G2 students conducted an autonomous field trip without the presence of a teacher. The G3 group consisted of students with prior academic backgrounds in Geography, History, or Art History. The sample data are presented in Table 3.

The study was conducted in four phases, described below. First, for all three study groups (G1, G2, and G3), a classroom session was held to explain the purpose and structure of the field trip, as well as how to use the ArcGIS Survey123 tool (ESRI®), a geotechnology that allows the design of geolocated questionnaires with photo capture, specifically created for this study. Detailed instructions were provided regarding the types of images that could be taken, ensuring that no identifiable individuals or vehicle license plates were included.

Second, two working modalities were established. For G1 and G3, a guided field trip was conducted with the professor, who provided explanations throughout the route and on aspects related to the activity. For G2, students were given time to carry out an autonomous field trip, following the guidance provided during the classroom session. In all cases, the use of the collaborative tool Survey123 (ESRI®) was mandatory, and students were required to submit at least three entries. This geotechnology allows geolocated photos to be taken on a map (Figure 5) and includes a short questionnaire with six items, along with the captured image.

The questionnaire items were as follows (accessible at https://arcg.is/u0jDu0):

This data collection enabled statistical analysis of the responses and observations made by the students.

Finally, a classroom discussion was held, preceded by the creation of an ArcGIS online StoryMap (ESRI®) using the information collected by the students. The resulting map was enriched with additional information derived from their observations (accessible at https://arcg.is/rW9az or https://arcg.is/18PqCi). The discussion promoted self-reflection and the development of critical thinking. Figure 6 summarizes the methodology described above.

As shown in Figure 7a, among the groups of future Primary Education teachers, direct tutoring (G1) during the field trip led to more critical observations by students, who collected more information related to “unsustainable” aspects of their urban environments. In contrast, G2 students had a more positive perception of their surroundings’ sustainability level (53.7%).

It is also evident that the use of geotechnologies—whether in guided or unguided trips—positively influences the perception of unsustainability. Students in guided trips identified more unsustainable processes (53.1%) compared to those in autonomous trips (46.3%) (Figure 7b).

As shown in Figure 8, most observations related to environmental sustainability were categorized under urban planning (spaces, buildings, etc.), urban solid waste (hereafter USW), and vandalism observed in various locations during the field trip. Other elements—perhaps more commonly addressed in the curriculum—such as accessibility (transport, use of public and private vehicles, bike lanes, etc.) or green spaces (gardens), were less frequently noted, with values between 10–15%.

The difference in the perception of noise as a pollutant is particularly striking between the guided and unguided groups. In the guided group (G1), noise was considered a factor contrary to sustainability, whereas G2 students barely acknowledged it. Even more notable is the distinct behavior of the Master’s students (G3), who showed greater sensitivity to topics such as green spaces, solid waste, urban furniture, and accessibility, but no interest in noise or buildings. This may be due to the fact that the public university campus in Madrid is composed of exclusively academic buildings and large green areas.

As shown in Figure 9, observations regarding the state of sustainability conservation in participants’ cities vary significantly depending on whether the field trip was guided or not. Although G2 (unguided) students identified fewer unsustainable elements (as seen in Figure 7a), they reported a very high percentage of “unacceptable” conditions, indicating a strong critical awareness of the observed situations. This perception of unacceptability was mainly linked to issues such as urban vandalism and solid waste in the city, reflecting a high level of sensitivity to these problems.

The behavior of G1 (guided group) was more balanced across all evaluation categories, with similar values for each level of conservation. Regarding the “excellent” rating, although it was the least frequent in both groups, it was mainly associated with urban planning aspects such as buildings and accessibility.

G2 students were more critical in their “excellent” ratings (18.1%) but showed the highest percentage of “needs improvement” (50.3%).

G3 (guided Master’s students) stood out as the group least likely to rate the state of their university environment as “unacceptable” (13%), while showing a high percentage (49.1%) of “needs improvement.” The “excellent” rating was mostly associated with the condition of green spaces, highlighting the importance of such areas in university settings.