Can Adult Education Boost Sustainability Transitions? Some Evidence from Farmers and Teachers

Abstract

Sustainability transitions are long-term processes that involve interactions among societal groups and promote co-evolutionary socio-technical transformations aimed at addressing crucial sustainability challenges. Although the focus of relevant work is often on groups, sustainability transitions also require personal transformations. Can adult education be a vehicle for promoting such transformations? In the present study, we attempted to answer this question by examining whether participation in sustainability-related adult education programs (AEPs) leads to the development of sustainability awareness, formation of sustainability-related values, construction of sustainability empathy, and initiation of pro-sustainability action among individuals. Following a quantitative research design and drawing upon data from farmers and teachers, we compared attendees and non-attendees of AEPs on the above-mentioned constructs. The analysis revealed that attendees scored significantly higher than non-attendees in awareness, values, empathy, and action. A series of hierarchical regressions confirmed the association between participation and the outcome variables, also showing no effects of demographic factors on the models. These results underscore the potential contribution of sustainability-related adult education to individual transformation, thus suggesting that targeted adult education interventions can facilitate sustainability transitions.

1. Introduction

Sustainability is a challenge, a target, and an ideal destination for humanity. However, as Hallin et al. [1] state, it is a performative concept. That is to say, a term enriched with meaning over time. New threats, such as the health crisis generated by COVID-19, global/regional economic disturbances, wars, or natural disasters, meet old concerns like climate change [2], loss of biodiversity [3], degradation of natural resources [4], persistent poverty [5], social inequalities [6], gender discrimination [7], and the loss of cultural values [8], creating an uncertain future for people and the planet. New understandings of what is (and what is not) “sustainable” emerge [9], and novel ways to solve sustainability-related problems (ranging from legislative actions [10] to innovative business models [11] to promising technologies [12]) are constantly proposed.

Initially developed around the notion of three dimensions or pillars (namely the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability [13]), currently the concept also encompasses other components, including the cultural [14], ethical [15], political [16], institutional [13], and human health sustainability [17]. Hence, sustainability is today a term concerning the ability of social-ecological systems to survive and thrive while simultaneously maintaining their essential social, economic, cultural, ethical, political, and institutional properties. The multidimensional nature of sustainability makes the transition to a sustainable future a lengthy process, marked by bumps and dips, which requires collective efforts to promote systemic change [18,19,20,21,22,23].

Sustainability transitions refer to fundamental and paradigmatic shifts in socio-technical systems. They are long-term processes involving different actors and aiming at co-creating solutions that promote sustainable models of production and consumption [23,24]. As such, sustainability transitions encompass high levels of complexity and uncertainty, requiring facilitation through learning [25,26] to support individual transformation and spur sustainability-promoting action [27]. Transitioning to a more sustainable future is, in itself, a process of learning. While undergoing transitions, individuals, organizations, and social groups acquire knowledge through action. In other words, they learn through the process of being actively involved in and experiencing the transition towards sustainability either by adapting their operational and living paradigms or exploiting new ones.

However, the reliance solely on experiential, unaided learning has some drawbacks. Different actors engage in varying degrees in the transition process, and their ability to learn might be conditioned by several factors. Therefore, learning may occur asymmetrically, negatively affecting transitions. Moreover, as Van Poeck et al. [28] aptly observe, learning by doing depends on various intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, and material factors, and thus it is not always optimal, whereas, on the other hand, it is not necessarily a sufficient condition to promote societal transformations. Finally, as Knowles et al. [29] point out, when experience is the only source of learning, persons may close their minds to new ideas and perceptions, or can be trapped into mental habits that lead to biased conceptions and understandings.

Hence, despite the importance of learning by participating in the transition process, education for sustainability continues to have a value. Griswold [30] explains that the central goal of adult education for sustainability is “to develop a citizenry capable of re-creating the world to ensure a healthy and equitable existence for all” (p. 11). Already from the launching of the Brundtland report [31], the link between education and the quest for sustainability was clear. As the Commission highlights, “the changes in attitudes, in social values, and in aspirations that the report urges will depend on vast campaigns of education, debate and public participation.” However, while studies on school or university education for sustainability witnessed a flourishing during the last decades, the issue of adult education towards achieving sustainable goals and facilitating transitions is underrepresented in the literature. Indeed, a search for relevant articles in the Scopus database reveals that adult education for sustainability is a less investigated field (Figure 1).

In the present study, we examine the potential contribution of adult education to the development of sustainability awareness, endorsement of sustainability-related values, development of sustainability empathy, and, finally, the undertaking of action towards sustainability. The article is structured as follows. First, we briefly conceptualize adult education, and we discuss its potential contribution to sustainability transitions. Then, we summarize the methodology of our study, and we present the results that emerged from the analysis of our data. Finally, we close the paper by reflecting upon our findings and outlining future research areas.

2. Adult Education: What Is It and Why Does It Matter for Sustainability Transitions?

Despite its wide use, adult education is one of those terms that are not clearly defined. As Merriam and Brockett [32] explain, the concept is subject to different interpretations, depending on the angle from which one views it, thus bringing to the mind the well-known parable of the blind men and the elephant. Early attempts to conceptualize adult education emphasized the open boundaries of the process and its non-authoritarian character, which are necessary prerequisites for equipping adults with skills and knowledge [33,34]. Later on, scholars introduced a more systemic view of adult education, pointing out that it encompasses a set of activities performed to nurture self-directed and empowered persons [35] who can improve themselves and the societies they live in [36] through transforming problematic frames of reference and changing perspectives. As Mezirow [37] artfully put it: “adult education is about helping people learn to coordinate their actions openly to reach understandings” (p. 17). In his transformative learning theory, Mezirow [38] offers one of the completest definitions of adult education. In his view, adult education is an organized effort that aims at assisting adults (persons old enough to undertake the responsibility of their actions) in building or enhancing skills, understandings, and dispositions. Learners’ critical reflection, appropriate validation, and action upon their own and others’ beliefs, value systems, feelings, understandings, and models of thinking, lead to positive outcomes for both individuals and society.

In sum, adult education can be defined as a process that helps individuals interrogate their perspectives by critically reflecting upon their beliefs and perceptions, and changing problematic frames of reference, thus altering their worldviews. In this vein, adult education is (more or less obviously) linked to sustainable development goals [39]. It can help individuals not only fill knowledge gaps [40] and increase their employability potential [41] but also develop their personal and professional selves [42], understand their position within physical and social surroundings, and criticize the contexts within which they live and work [43], hence (at its best) leading them to reconceptualize their own existence and the life itself, thus becoming socially responsible thinkers, to use Tisdell and Taylor’s [44] phrase.

Adult education encompasses every educational activity that helps individuals and social groups realize and exercise their rights, taking a more active role over their future and engaging with their societies, fostering in this way “sustainable and inclusive economic growth” [45] (p. 8). By definition, adult education is a process that produces societal outcomes and, as such, has a pivotal role to play in sustainability transitions. Oliver et al. [46] argue that key-knowledge types and competencies like systems thinking, anticipation and reflection are required to envision, implement and evaluate sustainability transitions. Others also contend that knowledge is a salient resource in sustainability transitions [47,48,49,50]. However, the intense focus of transition literature on technological artifacts [51] often reduces the interest in how social groups and individuals (co-)construct transition processes through their actions, what their knowledge gaps are, and how these gaps affect the procedure.

On the other hand, policies clearly refer to the need to enhance knowledge-generating activities and schemes that promote the development of skills and competencies needed to facilitate the transition to a sustainable future without offering directions on how to meet that target. For example, in its Skills Agenda, the European Union stresses the need for a paradigmatic shift in citizens’ skills, emphasizing, in parallel, the role of knowledge in increasing systemic resilience [52]. Nevertheless, there is a surprising absence of references to adult education from most policy documents referring to the achievement of sustainable development goals [53]. For instance, the European Green Deal [54] puts among the priorities of the European Union the development of a competence framework that will help individuals to build new knowledge and skills and to shape attitudes that help to tackle climate change and promote sustainable development, without however attributing a role to adult education.

So, the question remains: How can adult education facilitate sustainability transitions? Turning to Mezirow’s [38] definition of adult education, one can expect that adults who participate in AEPs would increase their understanding of sustainability by creating awareness of the complexity that characterizes both the term and its functions. Although sustainability awareness is a concept widely present in many fields (such as organizational and business research [55,56], educational research [57,58], and tourism research [59]) the term is often used as a synonym for environmental awareness. Nevertheless, being aware of sustainability means understanding sustainability dimensions and being conscious of their complex interrelations. Experimental evidence [60] and theoretical accounts [61] suggest that educational interventions contribute to the development of awareness among adults.

On the other hand, the transition to a more sustainable future requires a change in individual and social values [62,63]. Can adult education play a role in that? As Brookfield [35] explains, adult education is not only about teaching adults but also, and more importantly, about challenging old values and creating new ones. Indeed, through their participation in AEPs, individuals can interrogate their value systems and endorse new values that can help them reshape their perceptions and worldviews and alter how they experience and make sense of their social and physical environments [64].

Value reorientation is a process encompassing two strands. The first one concerns the emotional dimension of values. Being central to self-definition [65], values might encapsulate emotional attributes and create emotional responses [66]. In this vein, value reorientation can shape emotional reactions toward people, animals, and the natural environment. Font et al. [67] term that type of emotional connection “sustainability empathy.” In their study, Font and colleagues discovered that sustainability empathy is an antecedent of responsibility toward being more sustainable. As such, the nurture of sustainability empathy through AEPs could facilitate sustainability transitions.

The second, cognitive, strand of value change refers to the very nature of values. Bilsky and Schwartz [68] argue that values are cognitive representations of human goals which guide behavior. That is to say, values spur action by operating as motivational forces [69]. In plain words, individuals set and pursue specific goals that are congruent with their values [70]. Hence, by leading trainees (re)construct their value systems, adult education can prompt personal action, which is the stepping stone to sustainability transitions [71].

To sum up, sustainability-related adult education seems to have the potential to increase trainees’ awareness of sustainability issues, develop sustainability-promoting values, cultivate sustainability empathy, and take relevant action. In this study, using data from farmers and teachers, we examine this conjecture. Farmers are strongly involved in and affected by sustainability transitions, whereas their choices, practices, and decisions impact sustainability [72,73,74,75,76]. On the other hand, by shaping students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward sustainability, teachers can pave the way for a more sustainable future. Nevertheless, they are not always ready or capable of performing well in that role [77].

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

For the present work, we adopted a cross-sectional quantitative research design. Participants in this study were 32 farmers (62.5% men; mean age = 34.8 years, S.D. = 8; 75% secondary school graduates, 18.8% holders of higher education qualifications, 6.2% primary school graduates) and 39 secondary school teachers (59% women; mean age = 37.5 years, S.D. = 7.8; 82.1% higher education graduates and 17.9% MSc holders) from different regions of Greece. Each sample consisted of persons who, during the last five years, had participated in adult education programs focused on sustainability (11 farmers and 15 teachers—see Appendix A) and individuals who had not attended such programs.

For both samples, we used a purposeful sampling procedure, in which we first identified two teachers and three farmers who had been involved in sustainability-related educational projects. We then asked them to invite other farmers and teachers who participated in these or similar AEPs. Hence, these five persons were used as seeds, suggesting potential study participants. Each AEP attendee was requested to complete a questionnaire consisting of the measures presented in the following section. After completing the questionnaire, she/he was asked to suggest up to three counterparts (farmers or teachers) who have not attended such projects. Through this procedure, we collected data from two samples of non-attendees (21 farmers and 24 teachers).

3.2. Measures

To measure the four constructs of interest, we developed three scales (for sustainability awareness, sustainability-related values, and sustainability empathy) and used a single item (for sustainability-related action). Since we created an ad-hoc instrument, and given that the dimensions of sustainability are heavily interrelated(inevitably affecting the complexity of the draft items), we first performed an initial item and scale evaluation process. After developing four items for each scale, we convened an expert panel to assess its content validity. The panel consisted of four PhD holders with expertise in sustainable development and adult education. Experts individually rated three dimensions of each item: relevance to the respective construct, appropriateness for study participants, and ability to assess the variable of interest by thoroughly capturing each topic. To rate items, experts used a four-point scale (inappropriate, fair, good, very good). Items with less than 75% “very good” ratings in all dimensions were subjected to a panel discussion and either changed or eliminated (as has happened with one item of the sustainability empathy scale).

To assess participants’ awareness of sustainability issues, we formulated four items. Following previous work [78,79], we developed statements referring to the familiarity with and understanding of the interrelation between dimensions of sustainability. Respondents rated the items on a seven-point Likert scale from “completely disagree” (1) to “completely agree” (7). A principal axis factor analysis confirmed that the items belong to a single factor, accounting for 62.99% of the total variance (

Table 1. Scales used in the analysis: Eigenvalues and explained variance.

Construct	Items	Eigenvalue	Explained Variance
Awareness	The achievement of my economic goals might create environmental and social problems; The achievement of environmental goals might negatively affect economic growth; Environmental impacts of human economic activity have significant implications on social well-being; Environmental and economic goals cannot be viewed separately from the social needs of different groups	2.52	62.99%
Values	I sacrifice my personal desires to help the survival of other species; I don’t mind sacrificing some comforts for the sake of the natural environment; I don’t mind sacrifice some comforts for the sake of people in need; In my everyday life, I make decisions taking into account their costs and benefits to the biosphere	2.86	71.58%
Empathy	I am aware of and care about environmental health; I am aware of and care about social well-being; I am aware of and care about people living under the poverty line	2.28	75.89%

). The scree plot confirmed that all other eigenvalues were below 1.0 (Figure 2). After averaging items, we calculated a composite “awareness” score. Cronbach’s alphas were satisfactory for both samples (α_farmers = 0.84; α_teachers = 0.77).

For measuring sustainability-related values, we generated four items referring to altruistic values towards other humans and living species and to biospheric values (i.e., beliefs reflecting the importance of living in harmony with the biosphere [80,81]). Items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale. A principal axis factoring revealed that items load on a single factor, which retains 71.58% of the total variance (the second eigenvalue had a value of 0.53-see Figure 2). An average score was computed for creating a new variable labeled “values.” The reliability of the scale was high (α_farmers = 0.83; α_teachers = 0.88).

To assess empathy, we used three items referring to the emotional connection with and care for the environment, society, and economic justice. Response options were given on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). The principal axis factor analysis suggested a one-factor solution explaining 75.89% of the total variance. The scree plot is presented in Figure 2. To form a new variable, we averaged the items’ scores. The alpha coefficients received values of 0.84 for the farmers’ sample and 0.83 for the teachers’ sample.

Finally, we employed a single-item measure to assess participants’ sustainability-related action. Participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they undertake actions that protect and promote environmental, social, and economic sustainability by using a scale ranging from 1 (to a limited extent) to 7 (to a great extent).

3.3. Data Analysis Plan

For preliminary analyses, we performed appropriate bivariate tests (Pearson’s correlations, independent samples t-tests, Fisher’s exact tests, and Mann-Whitney tests). The main stage of analyses included independent samples t-tests and hierarchical regressions for both samples. Awareness, values, empathy, and action were used as response variables. In the first step of each regression equation, we added gender, age, and level of education. Then, in the second step, we added the dummy variable referring to participation in AEPs. Working in this way, we examined for potential effects of demographics on the association between attendance of AEPs and dependent variables. For all performed analyses, p-values lower than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

4. Results

4.1. Preliminary Analyses

Table 2. Pearson’s correlations between study variables and mean scores.

	Awareness	Values	Empathy	Action	Mean Score (Standard Deviation)
					Farmers’ Sample	Teachers’ Sample
Awareness		0.53 **	0.52 **	0.49 *	4.16 (1.05)	4.44 (0.97)
Values	0.32 *		0.52 **	0.39 *	3.63 (1.01)	4.15 (1.32)
Empathy	0.40 *	0.54 **		0.42 *	3.21 (0.86)	3.67 (1.20)
Action	0.36 *	0.34 *	0.35 *		2.53 (1.50)	3.69 (1.13)

Notes: Coefficients above the diagonal refer to farmers’ sample, and values below the diagonal concern the teachers’ sample; *: 0.01 < p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.

presents descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables for the two samples. Not surprisingly, the correlations between the four measures were positive for both samples. Awareness of sustainability issues had the highest mean score among the variables, followed by sustainability-related values. Although mean scores are higher for teachers, independent samples t-tests revealed that differences in the levels of awareness (t₍₆₉₎ = −1.13, p = 0.261), values (t_(68.717) = −1.88, p = 0.064) and empathy (t_(67.886) = −1.87, p = 0.066) were not significant. However, teachers seem to show a significantly more intense sustainability-related action than farmers (t₍₆₉₎ = −3.72, p < 0.001).

Attendees and non-attendees of AEPs did not differ in gender. Fisher’s exact test yielded p-values of 0.703 for farmers and 0.517 for teachers. Mann-Whitney tests uncovered no differences in the level of education between attendees and non-attendees of AEPs (U = 105.5, p = 0.696 for farmers, and U = 154.5, p = 0.466 for teachers). Concerning age, we observed a significant difference between attendees (M = 34.7; S.D. = 4.7) and non-attendees (M = 39.3; S.D. = 8.9) in the teachers’ sample (t_(36.270) = 2.11, p = 0.042), whereas, for farmers, the analysis revealed no difference (t₍₃₀₎ = −0.18, p = 0.855).

4.2. Main Analysis

To examine for differences in the levels of study variables between attendees and non-attendees of adult education, we performed independent samples t-tests. As

Table 3. Differences in the study variables between participants and non-participants in adult education programs.

	Statistics	Farmers	Teachers	Total Sample
Awareness	MAttendees (S.D.)	5.27 (0.55)	5.02 (0.93)	5.12 (0.79)
	MNon-attendees (S.D.)	3.58 (0.73)	4.07 (0.81)	3.84 (0.80)
	t	6.71 **	3.34 **	6.50 **
Values	MAttendees (S.D.)	4.61 (0.95)	5.22 (0.75)	4.96 (0.88)
	MNon-attendees (S.D.)	3.12 (0.57)	3.49 (1.15)	3.32 (0.93)
	t	5.59 **	5.66 **	7.30 **
Empathy	MAttendees (S.D.)	3.64 (1.06)	4.62 (0.65)	4.20 (0.97)
	MNon-attendees (S.D.)	2.98 (0.66)	3.07 (1.08)	3.03 (0.90)
	t	2.15 *	5.61 **	5.17 **
Action	MAttendees (S.D.)	3.64 (1.91)	4.20 (1.01)	3.96 (1.45)
	MNon-attendees (S.D.)	1.95 (0.80)	3.37 (1.10)	2.71 (1.20)
	t	2.79 *	2.35 *	3.91 **

* 0.01 < p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.

highlights, in all cases, attendees of relevant AEPs showed significantly higher levels of sustainability awareness, sustainability-related values, sustainability empathy, and sustainability-related action than non-attendees. For both samples, the differences were significant at the 0.01 level for the first two variables and the 0.05 level for sustainability-related action.

To confirm that the above-mentioned differences are not affected by demographics, we performed a series of regression analyses for the two samples. For farmers, the regressions (

Table 4. R squared changes and beta coefficients of the final models for the regressions referring to farmers’ sample.

	Awareness		Values		Empathy		Action
	ΔR2	β	ΔR2	β	ΔR2	β	ΔR2	β
Set 1	0.02		0.03		0.06		0.05
Gender		−0.03		0.07		−0.28		−0.19
Age		0.08		0.08		0.05		0.14
Education		−0.02		−0.08		0.01		−0.08
Set 2	0.59 **		0.49 **		0.15 *		0.31 **
Participation in AEPs		0.78 **		0.71**		0.40 *		0.56 **

* 0.01 < p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.

) revealed that participation in AEPs was positively associated with the development of awareness about sustainability issues, with a very high beta coefficient (β = 0.78, p < 0.01), whereas the value of ΔR² was 0.59 (p < 0.01).

In the model for sustainability-related values, we observed the same pattern. R squared change and beta coefficients were high and significant (ΔR² = 0.49, β = 0.71, p < 0.01). In the following phase, we discovered that participation in educational programs was positively associated with empathy toward sustainability (ΔR² = 0.15, β = 0.40, p = 0.029) and sustainability-related action (ΔR² = 0.31, β = 0.56, p < 0.01). In all cases, the set of demographic variables had no significant contribution to the models.

Following a similar procedure for the teachers’ sample (

Table 5. R squared changes and beta coefficients of the final models for the regressions referring to teachers’ sample.

	Awareness		Values		Empathy		Action
	ΔR2	β	ΔR2	β	ΔR2	β	ΔR2	β
Set 1	0.16		0.07		0.13		0.11
Gender		0.32 *		0.12		0.21		0.04
Age		0.01		0.13		0.17		0.23
Education		−0.09		0.03		0.07		0.19
Set 2	0.18 **		0.38 **		0.36 **		0.13 *
Participation in AEPs		0.46 **		0.66 **		0.65 **		0.39 *

* 0.01 < p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.

), we found that participation is positively associated with sustainability awareness. The beta coefficient for the participation in AEPs was 0.46 (p < 0.01), and the R squared change was 0.18. The three control variables had no significant contribution to the model (ΔR² = 0.16, p = 0.111) as a set, although gender had a significant beta coefficient (β = 0.32, p = 0.030). The following two regressions revealed the positive associations between attendance of adult education and the development of sustainability-related values (β = 0.66, p < 0.001; ΔR² = 0.38) as well as sustainability empathy (β = 0.65, p < 0.001; ΔR² = 0.36). For both models, demographic factors were not significant. In addition, the final model confirmed a strong association between participation in educational programs and sustainability-related action. The beta coefficient was lower than in the previous models (β = 0.39), but the p-value observed was still significant (p = 0.023). Again, the set of demographics hadno significant contribution to the regressions.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The growing interest in sustainability transitions created a solid and impressive literature base. Nevertheless, despite its contribution to our understanding of many crucial issues, such as transitions governance, the politics of transitions, and the roles of niche actors, regimes, or intermediaries in transitions, relevant research has not yet focused on how we can impel individuals’ engagement in the transition process. Since transitions are associated with, and possibly driven by, changes in culture, values [82], practices, and perceptions [63], they depend on changes made at the individual level [83]. Adult education theorists [37,84] argue that, by participating in AEPs, persons alter how they make sense of the changing physical and social environment and consequently their worldview, thus becoming more active citizens. If this proposition holds true, adult education can indeed boost sustainability transitions.

Conceptual contributions support this association by emphasizing the role of adult education in promoting environmental [85] and social sustainability [86] or in fostering sustainability-related values and motivating action [87]. However, most research studies in the field of adult education associate participation in AEPs with individual–instead of social–purposes, following the common assumption that adult education represents a “learning for earning” approach [88]. Hence, to date, there is no research examining whether adult education can (or cannot) support sustainability transitions by promoting personal change. To fill this gap, in the present study, we tried to provide evidence that participation in AEPs focusing on sustainability issues can help trainees build sustainability awareness, cultivate sustainability-related values and empathy for sustainability, and take action for a sustainable present and future.

In our study, we used data derived from farmers and teachers, two occupational groups that can influence sustainability transitions through their practices. The analysis uncovered that participation in sustainability-related AEPs is positively associated with all of the examined constructs. For farmers, the strongest associations concern awareness and values, i.e., the two constructs with the highest mean scores for AEPs’ attendees. In the teachers’ sample, participation in AEPs is more strongly linked with the endorsement of sustainability-related values and sustainability empathy. In both cases, the differences between AEP attendees and non-attendees showed that participation in adult education increases sustainability-related action. Notwithstanding the fact that farmers who took part in AEPs denoted moderate levels of sustainability-related action (a finding that can be attributed to a variety of issues, including technical barriers [89] or the financial cost of adopting sustainable ways of doing farming [90]), their difference with non-attendees was significant, as it was also noticed in teachers.

Although our analysis was focused only on farmers and teachers, and despite the limitation of small sample sizes, the findings confirm that, beyond awareness, participation in sustainability-related AEPs triggers internal motivators (values and empathy), also spurring action. Of course, we should note that, in the present study, we have not examined the types of AEPs in which subjects participated. Depending on the techniques used [91], philosophies adopted, and their foci of attention [92], AEPs might produce different outcomes. Future researchers can examine how the characteristics of sustainability-related AEPs affect their effectiveness and how AEPs’ content and learning approaches contribute to the development of sustainability awareness, cultivation of relevant values and empathy, and lead attendees to undertake pro-sustainability action.

Despite the limitations mentioned above, our study makes a twofold contribution to the field of sustainability transitions. First, it incorporates psychological constructs, such as sustainability-related values and empathy, into relevant research, thus responding to recent calls for engaging psychology and individual perspectives in transition studies [93]. Second, it highlights the role that learning and transformation can play in facilitating transitions. Turning back to our title question, the work presented herein suggests that adult education has much to offer in the transition toward a sustainable future and, hence, it can be added to the palette of policy actions that Köhler et al. [94] propose for shaping the directionality of sustainability transitions. We hope this piece of work will encourage policy-makers to rethink the role of adult education in pursuing sustainability goals, inspiring, in parallel, future research on how to use adult education as a tool for facilitating sustainability transitions.