The European policy landscape urges a commitment to lifelong learning for all adults, emphasizing its benefits at individual, societal, and economic levels (e.g. Council of the European Union, 2021; European Commission, 2017; Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid & Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, 2018). To achieve this, inclusive and attractive learning systems are essential, necessitating individual responsibility and agency towards learning. The central research question arises: What kind of socio-spatial environment is required to activate adults to learn? This literature review aims to conceptually explore the components of a conducive socio-spatial environment for adult learning, identifying success factors that can inform the development of inclusive learning systems.

The literature review focuses on vulnerable adults, those lacking resources to overcome difficulties independently. Adult learning, broadly encompassing formal, non-formal, and informal types, serves diverse purposes like personal development, leisure, and career support. Emphasizing lifelong development (Kuijpers et al., 2019; Kuijpers & Draaisma, 2020), the review draws on the capability approach to assess if individuals have the freedom to aspire to learning and if conversion factors facilitate turning this capability into actual learning.

The review adopts a three-level framework (micro, meso, macro) to analyse factors influencing adult learning participation (Boeren, 2017; von Hippel & Tippelt, 2010). At the micro-level, individual agency is crucial, where factors like aspirations, competence, and autonomy influence learning. Learning is seen as a socially embedded process, emphasizing the importance of the social context and communities in triggering change or supporting learning. The meso-level considers the socio-spatial learning infrastructure that activates adult learners, connecting macro-level policies to specific interventions at the local level.

At micro level, individual agency, comprising aspirations and competence, interacts with the social context in determining the willingness of adults to learn. A capability approach is employed to assess the freedom to aspire to learning and the presence of conversion factors for actual learning.

This meso-level looks at the whole socio-spatial learning infrastructure that activates a learner (Rutten & Boekema, 2012).  This level examines the wider learning infrastructure beyond education providers, including material, discursive, social, and technological mechanisms. The meso-level is critical in operationalizing macro-level policies into interventions responding to specific adult learning needs in a socio-spatial context.

Given this multi-level framework, the central research question is: How can the socio-spatial environment activate a vulnerable person to learn, and what conditions constitute such an activating environment at meso-level? Three sub-questions support the investigation: 1) What conditions are needed to reach potential adult learners and engage with them? 2) What conditions are necessary in a socio-spatial environment to develop an effective infrastructure? 3) What should be prioritized in terms of policies to support the conditions for an effective infrastructure? The literature review navigates through micro and meso-level factors to answer the research question, aiming to identify conditions facilitating the creation of a conducive socio-spatial environment for adult learning. The analysis is expected to inform policy and practice, enhancing existing socio-spatial environments to activate adults to learn.

The methodology employed for the literature review aimed to identify conditions contributing to a conducive socio-spatial environment for adult learning. The process involved a systematic search, screening, and analysis of relevant articles and reports. The literature review initiated with a comprehensive search on Web of Science, utilizing combinations of keywords such as "learning cities," "region," "community," "success," "lifelong learning," "governance," "partnership," "lifelong," and "conducive." The objective was to cast a broad net and capture articles addressing adult learning, lifelong learning, and socio-spatial dimensions. The initial search yielded a long-list of 107 articles. The screening process involved examining article titles and summaries to identify relevance. Additionally, bibliographies of the initially identified articles were explored to uncover further relevant sources. Reports from international organizations focusing on conditions for effective lifelong learning systems were also considered. This thorough screening resulted in a refined selection of 70 articles and reports for further examination. Atlas TI was employed as the tool for analysing the 70 selected articles and reports. This software facilitates systematic coding and categorization of qualitative data, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the identified sources. The 70 sources were categorised into three distinct strands aligning with the three sub-questions introduced earlier. The first strand focused on specific institutions, particularly local learning centres. Two articles and one report were identified within this strand, delving into the factors that contribute to the success of these organisations. The second strand concentrated on learning cities and communities, with a specific emphasis on the infrastructural dimension. Twelve articles and reports were analysed within this strand to comprehend the success factors of learning communities and cities. The third strand delved into the conditions of successful adult learning policies, scrutinising aspects pivotal for establishing effective policies and interventions. In total, eight articles and reports were considered in this strand. The three strands exhibit a logical division in terms of scope. The first strand addresses institutional aspects, the second explores the interplay between institutions and socio-spatial environments, and the third focuses on policy and governance-related aspects. This division ensures a comprehensive and systematic examination of various dimensions influencing the creation of conducive socio-spatial environments for adult learning.

The starting point of the review involved situating the individual learner within their social context at the micro-level and analysing the necessary systems and interventions at the meso-level to activate them. Drawing from earlier research at the micro-level (Broek et al., 2023), a set of factors influencing learning, including agency-factors, personal circumstances, and various social environments, was identified. The review concentrated on meso-level conditions, led to the identification of characteristics essential for conducive learning environments. As system characteristics, building conducive learning environments necessitates governance, political will, and partnerships to address broader social challenges hindering adult aspirations to learn. Sustainable funding and flexible approaches are crucial. Partnerships between adult learning providers and supporting institutions, both within and outside social domains, are pivotal for creating a comprehensive infrastructure. Monitoring and evaluation systems need to go beyond measuring participation rates. At the intervention level, a holistic approach requires sensitivity in reaching out to adults, addressing challenges in intake procedures, creating motivating learning environments, providing tailored guidance services, and ensuring progression. Professionals in the field, must exhibit a high level of professionalism to engage with diverse learner groups, build partnerships, and solve problems. The synthesis of identified conditions at the system and intervention levels forms a socio-spatial infrastructure that stimulates adults to learn within their specific social context. Bringing together success factors from diverse perspectives enriches existing overviews, providing a holistic understanding. The literature review establishes the groundwork for an empirical approach to study socio-spatial environments' ability to activate individuals and engage with their communities. The identified success factors can serve as a foundation for developing a framework to assess regional or local policies and measures in developing learning-conducive environments for all adults, including those not yet positioned to learn.

Belete, S., Duke, C., Hinzen, H., Owusu-Boampong, A., & Khau, H. P. (2022). Community Learning Centres (CLCs) for Adult Learning and Education (ALE): Development in and by communities. International Review of Education, 68(2), 259-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-022-09954-w Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Paradigm Publishers. Boeren, E. (2017). Understanding adult lifelong learning participation as a layered problem. Studies in Continuing Education, 39(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2017.1310096 Borkowska, K., & Osborne, M. (2018). Locating the fourth helix: Rethinking the role of civil society in developing smart learning cities. International Review of Education, 64(3), 355-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9723-0 Broek, S. D., Linden, J. V. D., Kuijpers, M. A. C. T., & Semeijn, J. H. (2023). What makes adults choose to learn: Factors that stimulate or prevent adults from learning. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 147797142311696. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714231169684 Byun, J., & Ryu, K. (2012). Changes in Regional Communities: The Case of the Republic of Korea’s Lifelong Learning City Project. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(3), 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422312446057 Downes, P. (2011). Community Based Lifelong Learning Centres: Developing a European Strategy Informed by International Evidence and Research. Research Paper for European Commission Network of Experts on the Social aspects of Education and Training (NESET) Cardiff University. Duke, C. (2010). Learning Cities and Regions. In International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 144-149). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00032-4 Facer, K., & Buchczyk, M. (2019b). Understanding Learning Cities as discursive, material and affective infrastructures. Oxford Review of Education, 45(2), 168-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1552581 Field, J. (2006). Lifelong learning and the new educational order (2nd rev. ed). Trentham Books. Kuijpers, M., & Draaisma, A. (2020). Loopbaangericht leven lang ontwikkelen: Economisch en zingevingsperspectief voor nu en de toekomst : onderzoeksrapport. Bijzondere Leerstoel Leeromgeving & -loopbanen. https://leerloopbanen.nl/media/57e00871-5afa-40f5-b592-c9aacd336003 Nussbaum, M. (2013). Creating capabilities: The human development approach (1. paperback ed). Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press. Rutten, R., & Boekema, F. (2012). From Learning Region to Learning in a Socio-spatial Context. Regional Studies, 46(8), 981-992. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.712679 Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom (1. Anchor Books ed). Anchor Books. van der Veen, R., & Wildemeersch, D. (2012). Diverse cities: Learning to live together. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.636570 von Hippel, A., & Tippelt, R. (2010). The role of adult educators towards (potential) participants and their contribution to increasing participation in adult education—Insights into existing research. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 1(1-2), 33-51. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela0012