Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Protestant University of Ludwigsburg, Germany (r.ahlrichs@eh-ludwigsburg.de)
Åbo Akademi University, Finland (peter.ehrstrom@abo.fi)
This article outlines methods of practice-oriented teaching at universities integrating
democracy, sustainability, and learning in adult education.. The methods highlight the
potential for democratic innovation in local communities in which diverse perspectives
come together to address societal challenges. With a focus on sustainability and the
connection among place, space, and pedagogy it introduces ‘Voice-Resonance Walks,’ a
deliberative method piloted in Stuttgart, Germany, for social work education. It also
highlights pilot deliberations at the district (Mini-Studentlab Deliberative Walks) and
cityscape (Public Transport Walks) levels in Hamburg, Germany, involving
interdisciplinary student groups in lifelong learning. These examples illustrate how
higher education institutions are engaging with the public sphere, with a particular focus
on vulnerable groups of citizens and on fostering civic learning. They aim to equip
students with the knowledge and skills to become future experts, decision-makers, and
active citizens, capable of understanding the challenges facing both their local
neighborhoods and diverse urban spaces.
deliberation, adult education, walk-centred method, social sustainability
Education is one of many components in the sustainable development process or the route
towards a more sustainable society (UNESCO, 2018). The three dimensions of
sustainable development (also referred to as pillars) are well known and termed the
ecological (also called environmental), the social (split into social/cultural), and the
economic dimensions. Even if the social dimension has been distinct, ever since
sustainable development emerged in politics, this dimension has been more or less
neglected as wider debates in general have prioritised environmental (i.e. climate change)
and economic (i.e. industrial capitalism) perspectives (Davidson, 2009).
Opielka (2023, pp. 43-46) distinguishes four types of conceptions of social
sustainability. A narrow understanding of social sustainability sees it, like mentioned
above, as one of the three pillars of sustainability, with social sustainability being a kind
of counterpart to economic and environmental sustainability, with the latter being the
focus of efforts. In contrast, the internal understanding of social sustainability does not
refer to the ecological dimension but focuses on the preservation of values within
companies and institutions – for example, through foundations or in family businesses.
According to this understanding, the ecological dimension only comes into view through
the preservation of common goods and resources. The sceptical understanding of social
sustainability is particularly devoted to the sustainability of functional economic systems,
such as the financing of pension systems and the limitation of public debt under the aspect
of intergenerational justice. The fourth understanding is termed the wider understanding
of social sustainability. Here, social sustainability is understood as a social transformation
project. Opielka also sees the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United
Nations (UN) as an expression of such a wider understanding of social sustainability. In
this article, we focus on the wider understanding of social sustainability.
The key question that Davidson (2009) always finds present when it is necessary to
define the social dimension is ‘What type of society do we want to sustain?’ (Davidson,
2009, p. 616). In this question, he sees an underlying political potential with an urgent
call for social ethics. This can still be regarded as the core question related to a wider
understanding of sustainability in general, and social sustainability in particular. To this
question, the following question could be added: Who wants to sustain their society,
whose is the society and for whom is it to be sustained? Many of the contemporary
sustainability challenges are related to the social sphere.
In 2015, the UN member states adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the SDGs. A core promise of the agenda is ‘to leave no one behind’;
specifically, goal 10 focuses on reducing inequality within and between countries. Goal
4 of the 17 SDGs particularly focuses on the equal right to education for all and
simultaneously calls for adult education: ‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality
education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ (UNESCO, 2018). In order
to achieve such a sustainable development, the contours of future societies must be drawn
as clearly as possible. This also applies to the normative foundations of sustainability.
Dörre (2022, p. 203) suggests using the SDGs as a normative basis for those strategies
that aim to free societies from the constraints of rapid, permanent economic growth.
Therefore, re-learning will be essential, and pedagogical efforts will be needed to enable
or at least accompany and support this learning (Dinkelaker, 2023, p. 47).
Against this background, we first outline the links between sustainability and adult
education in the context of participatory democracy. We argue that the current methods
of participation make it difficult to include marginalised groups and bring pluralistic
positions into exchange. Therefore, we argue for place-based and walk-centric methods.
As an example of such methods, we present participatory and deliberative course
elements carried out in Germany with students in Hamburg and in Stuttgart as examples
that can also be used in adult education. Finally, we discuss the results methodologically
and place them in the context of the current debate on social sustainability.
The current crisis of democracy has led to democratic innovations. Methods promoting
political participation and deliberative democracy play an essential role in advancing
democratic practices. This is reinforced by the current discourse on sustainability:
With the Rio Conference in the 1990s, the Local Agenda 21 strategies strengthened a new
trend towards more deliberative political participation with a focus on sustainability. [...] A
broader participatory space with democratic innovations as a ‘deliberative turn’ can be seen
in several new participatory instruments in the invited and invented space. (Kersting, 2021,
p. 1)
Here, the term ‘invented space’ is used to refer to the bottom-up actions of civil society,
such as demonstrations of the climate movement or actions in public space. On the other
hand, invited space refers to new models of participation initiated by governments or
public authorities, which aim to increase the role of initiatives in local decision-making
processes. This form of participation is increasingly being accused of only integrating
certain groups into participation processes.
However, several studies have emphasised the crucial role of adult education in
promoting sustainability. Lükő and Kollarics (2013) as well as Griswold (2017) highlight
the importance of sustainability and ecojustice education in adult learning. Lükő and
Kollarics (2013) specifically discuss the connection between sustainable development
and adult education. Sumner (2003) extends this discussion to the community level,
thereby suggesting that environmental adult education can contribute to local
sustainability. These studies collectively emphasise the potential of adult education in
advancing sustainability.
Only the current perception of the climate and sustainability issue as a
comprehensive social crisis enables the specialised delegation of the pedagogical task
exclusively to established educational institutions to be invalidated: Instead, given the
global dimensions of the crisis, re-learning is considered necessary everywhere and
without exception. Educational efforts can no longer be limited to the day-to-day business
of educational institutions (Dinkelaker, 2023). Education must make a difference and
promote self-transformation and the transformation of the societies that the individuals
and groups are a part of (Wolff, 2015). Educators are crucial in the learning process,
according to Wolff and Ehrström (2020), and sustainability teaching and learning requires
engaged and creative educators (Burns et al., 2019). It is the educators’ role to raise
provocative questions and encourage critical thinking by asking the students for
convincing arguments. Adult educators help students to acquire the necessary skills,
sensitivities, and understanding so they become critically reflective participators in
dialectical discourses (Mezirow, 2009). Thus, the discussions among students are
important. According to Taylor (2009, p. 9), ‘it is within the arena of dialogue that
experience and critical reflection play out’.
Rieckmann (2018) argues that a task for education for sustainable development is to
support individuals so they begin to reflect on their own roles as actively promoting global
social and environmental sustainability now and in the future. In turn, Roos (2015)
advocates for a more holistic education. Education here does not primarily imply the
acquisition of existing knowledge but rather the development of new knowledge
(Dinkelaker, 2023). This is necessary because of the lack of viable concepts. The
complexity of the ecological question makes it necessary that the development of these
concepts by specialised scientists alone is not sufficient. Rather, all people must
participate in this development of knowledge, based on their respective life situations and
they must develop the necessary skills to do so. According to Wolff and Ehrström (2020),
in discussions regarding sustainability, and particularly in relation to teaching and
learning, the topic of transformation is increasingly present. However, transformative
learning is developed for use in adult education and based on deliberative democracy.
In this article, we present examples in which deliberation and learning are combined
in walk-centric methods. The use of methods based on walks and place-based in situ
observations is not a new concept. Walk methods have been utilised in linguistic
landscape studies, as noted by Garvin (2011) and Evans and Jones (2011). Middleton
(2018, p. 298) argues that there is ‘a growing interest in walking as method and practice’.
A multitude of different walk-centric methods have been developed in different fields of
research – for example, Development Walk, Deliberative Walks, Marginal Walking,
Transdisciplinary Walks, WalkingLabs, Walking Interviews, Walking Tours,
Strollology, Critical Walking Methods, City Walks, ‘Go-Along’ Walks, Structural
District Walks, Everyday Urban Walking, Walking Ethnography. Truman and Springgay
(2016) state: ‘Walking as an artistic and participatory practice reappears in various
disciplines, including its intersections with social science and humanities research
methods and methodologies’ (p. 259). The years of the COVID-19 crises have further
emphasised the value of walking, or as Springgay and Truman (2022, pp. 171-172)
conclude, ‘…as countless places have entered various stages of lockdown over the past 2
years, the capacity to walk has taken on new meanings’, but, at the same time, the
pandemic also ‘has further exacerbated walking’s inequalities… walking becomes an
ethical and political accountability and responsibility for how we walk, who walks, and
where we walk…’.
Walking methods have also been increasingly explored in adult education, each
offering unique benefits. Heijnen et al. (2022) found that walking interviews provided a
richer perspective on place and practice in outdoor education. Bairner (2011) argues that
there is a pressing need to re-assert the educational value of going for a walk:
Walking the streets also provides us with insights into how other people live, and in
particular, how they make use of urban space. It is on the street that we most directly
experience what it is like to live with strangers… walking teaches us more than any other
activity about the places where we live and the places that we visit (Bairner, 2011, p. 382).
Nevertheless, transformative methods are designed for use in adult education and are
based on a profound theoretical understanding, which prevents them from being applied
in any context or situation (Taylor, 2009). Taylor also emphasises that learning, including
transformative learning, is always dependent on context; therefore, it is difficult to
ascertain how much the learning environment influences the outcome.
Wolff and Ehrström (2020) provide examples on how sustainability is implemented
in four university courses, three in Finland and one in Germany. In all four courses Wolff
and Ehrström (2020) described, they strived to awaken students’ curiosity as well as their
active self-criticism. They also wanted to encourage participants to broadly and critically
explore the field of sustainability and continue exploring the topic, particularly from
views that are relevant to their continuous studies and future duties. In these cases, the
learning was more or less interactive, learner-centred, participatory, collaborative, and
problem-oriented (Rieckmann, 2018). Since the sustainability topic is extremely complex
and utterly urgent, lecturers cannot leave students to study the topics alone: ‘…we wanted
to emphasise that interdisciplinary, even transdisciplinary approaches, authentic learning
environments, and a focus on current topics like leadership illuminate the social
dimension of sustainability’ (Wolff & Ehrström, 2020, p. 4191). The methods employed
were walk-centred. The following paragraphs elucidate the theoretical foundations of this
approach. Thereafter, the methodology is exemplified through the use of illustrative
examples from Hamburg and Stuttgart, which were conducted with student groups.
In traditional adult education settings, such as a lecture series, knowledge is usually
imparted by experts, even in the context of sustainability issues. Although the audience
can ask questions, the education remains ‘one-sided’ (Stimm, 2023, p. 67). There is no
discursive negotiation of positions or bodies of knowledge. However, participation and
deliberation – based on listening to experts; interacting with experts in classrooms;
verbalising questions, concerns, or support; as well as following or reading sophisticated
texts, charts, and figures – tend to strengthen the position of well-educated, well-situated,
and well-positioned citizens. For other groups, this challenges their rights and
possibilities to participate in an equal manner. In contrast, in this article, the discussion
regarding social sustainability is situated in the space of action. This implies that different
actors bring their questions and beliefs as well as their knowledge and positions into the
public sphere. Their voices are heard and responded to. In this process of deliberation,
something emerges in the situation – not merely different knowledge or a differentiation
of one's own perspectives but an ‘in-between’ (Stimm, 2023, p. 60). This in-between
emerges only through the coming together of different actors, their contexts, and their
knowledge.
According to Szczepanski (2013), where education takes place is a vital didactic and
pedagogical question, which emphasises the meaning of place in the learning process. In
the context of deliberative democracy, it is also important to pay attention to where
learning actually takes place, as this may influence deliberations and the learning process.
Currently, even political scholars such as Prosser et al. (2018) note that ‘in practice there
has been an emphasis on design and the procedural within democratic innovation, while
what is often lacking is detail on the pedagogy of learning’ (p. 213). Learning to deliberate
is core to our development as democratic citizens and instead of merely articulating
viewpoints, a deliberative process also creates opportunities for these viewpoints to
change (Curato et al., 2017). Thus, there is a need to develop deliberative methods that
increase participants’ learning of not only issues but also of participation itself. The
literature on deliberations has rarely focused on actual learning processes, even though,
for example, Hartz-Karp and Stocker (2013) suggest that learning is essential in
deliberative democracy and as Sorkin (2009, p. 81) indicates, ‘walking is not simply an
occasion for observation, but an analytical instrument’.
Ehrström and Raisio (2014) saw the need for a more holistic approach and combined
elements from Citizens Juries and Development Walks to create a new participatory
method – Deliberative Walks. Therefore, they united two different participatory methods:
one based on discussions and theoretical content (Citizens Jury), and the other
observation-oriented and place-based (Development Walk). Deliberative Walks were
introduced as a vehicle to learn in a more complete matter (Ehrström, 2015). Deliberative
Walks make it possible to grasp the issue under deliberation in a more holistic manner.
Ideally, Deliberative Walks could also make learning processes more equal, as
individuals who have challenges in learning by listening to experts or reading information
packages could also learn by seeing, observing, and feeling (Raisio & Ehrström, 2017):
‘Deliberative Walks implies to plan with people, instead of planning for people, or over
the heads of people’ (Ehrström, 2020).
However, the examples presented in this article are variations of Deliberative and
Development Walks. They were implemented with groups of students in Hamburg and
Stuttgart. Nevertheless, they can provide helpful suggestions regarding how deliberations
on issues of sustainability and the transformation of cities can be implemented using
walk-centric methods in adult education. First, we present the examples in order to
examine different methodological approaches in a systematic manner and identify the
methodological developments that have been made on this basis.
First, we present two examples of implementing walk-centric course elements in higher
education. Both include a specific walk-centric or walk-including method as well as
specific elements that could be characterised as either the main focus point and element
of a course (the complexity of sustainability) or as a freestanding common element for
three different courses (two-day weekend mini-studentlab Deliberative Walks). Both
include a walk-centric deliberation and place-based learning context, but one case is a
variation of Deliberative Walks while the other paves a way for bringing walk-centric
deliberations to the cityscape at large, with various and different (inner) city districts as
arenas for action, made possible by combining public transportation with walking and
learning on foot.
The common feature of the University of Hamburg course elements (the complexity
of sustainability as well as mini-studentlab Deliberative Walks) was authentic
environments and a connection between local and global perspectives. Authentic learning
environments are built on situated approaches and the idea that learning is best achieved
in circumstances that resemble relevant and real-world contexts (Herrington &
Herrington, 2006). The course examples indicate that sustainability courses can assume
many shapes and that it is important to create conditions for social sustainability learning
at universities. Wolff and Ehrström (2020) argue that it is an advantage to have many
lecturers for the same course, but that this is not always possible. Bringing in guest
lecturers may also be an option.
Heijnen et al. (2022, p. 529) argue that ‘mobile research methods, comprising a range
of research approaches that aim to gather data while on the move, allow for rich and
situated encounters with the places and people in which outdoor researchers are
interested’. They note that although outdoor education often occurs in dynamic, mobile
settings, research in this field has predominantly relied on traditional stationary methods,
which underutilize the potential of mobile approaches. Heijnen et al. (2022, p. 533)
further argue that ‘it is important to recognize the political and contested dimension of
sense of place’ and that the process that shape place meanings are, partially, ‘driven by
differing languages and potentially conflicting ideologies’ (p. 533). The concept of place
links individuals to locations through the establishment of mutual meanings, and, thus,
outdoor education that is responsive to place should be attentive to the distinct needs of
each area. Furthermore, the goals of place-responsive outdoor education should align with
adjustments in teaching methods. To paraphrase Heijnen et al. (2022), mobile research
methods and place-based learning methods with in situ observations offer researchers the
ability to not only ask questions regarding the place but also questions in the place.
‘Furthermore, the mobile act of walking itself allows both participant and researcher to
engage with place in a direct and embodied way’ (p. 543).
In 2019, Ehrström arranged a place-based deliberation with in situ-observations in
education that exemplify how bringing deliberations to the streets and including in situ-
elements in education can assume different forms and bring insights on different
(geographical) scales. This can also exemplify changes in teaching practices, indicated
by Heijnen et al. (2022), for place-responsive outdoor education aims. In this case, by
taking advantage of a wide urban public transport network to extend the geographical
area covered in a Development Walk to that covered in a modified Public Transportation
Walk. This pilot was organised as a modified one-lecturer version of The Complexity of
Sustainable Development course in Lifelong Learning at the Faculty of Education,
University of Hamburg, Germany, in 2019. The course essentially focused on two full-
day seminars – the first on social sustainability connected to urban transformation and the
second on popular culture and learning; the course also included traditional two-hour
weekly seminars addressing the different pillars and definitions of sustainability, with a
focus on social sustainability. Before the full-day seminar on urban transformation,
organised as a walk-centric deliberation, in the inner city of Hamburg, each participating
student was tasked to prepare a short presentation of one of the districts and a specific
contested space or issue in it as well as to discuss the characteristics and specific place-
based challenges for local-level social sustainability in that particular area. Theoretically,
the emphasis was on place-based learning through a (structured) Development Walk
during which the group visited seven inner-city districts with various characteristics. The
idea was to present a varied map of the city in which different districts and places face
varied challenges. Accordingly, the students explored districts from the newly built
Hafencity to the traditional working-class St. Pauli, cultural and counter-cultural
Sternschanze, wealthy University district Rotherbaum, and inner-city shopping districts
(in Neustadt).
The structured and modified Development Walks method that was created for this
course element was, in essence, a Public Transportation Walk, using public transport
networks for longer distances among localities (both U-Bahn and S-Bahn). Seven
interdisciplinary students participated in the pilot Public Transportation Walk and
experienced several urban environments while discussing various place-connected social
sustainability challenges. All students prepared presentations on a specific location and
on specific place-related challenges at a selected contested space. As these presentations
and discussions were held at the very spaces of deliberation, in effect, higher education
brought deliberations to the streets, to the wider cityscape, for a more holistic
understanding of both local-level and city-wide challenges. After each presentation, the
walk leader positioned the presented and discussed local challenges and contested issues
and spaces to a global context. During the course, and particularly in this walk-centric
deliberation, the students experienced connections to the global in the local and the local
in the global – that is, how global trends and phenomena connect to local ones, and vice
versa. This was further emphasised in a follow-up seminar in class, in which experiences
were discussed in greater depth as well as how the various transformation processes and
district identities related to global trends.
Here, the discussion/group deliberation also did not follow directly after the walk-
centric deliberation. Instead, the group discussed experiences from the in situ-
observations in a subsequent seminar in class and then reflected over how the in situ-
observations in different localities connect to global trends and social sustainability
challenges. On the whole, organizing a city-wide and walk-centric deliberation/in situ-
observation may be considered challenging. However, the rewards for organizing a Public
Transportation Walk to different localities is worthwhile. First, an urban in situ-
observation walk-centric deliberation provides space for a more general and wholesome
understanding of the varied urban landscape as a whole, with its ongoing simultaneous
and varied transformation challenges and opportunities. Arguably, this also increases the
understanding of a city-wide sustainable development and combination of multiple varied
challenges as well as various forms of urban transformation. The often-understated
connection among social, economic, and ecological sustainability challenges are also
brought forward in a common, but also contested, urban cityscape with simultaneous and
varying transformation processes.
However, this also creates challenges – first, on course planning, as it is not possible
to organise everywhere, and all places are not accessible by public transportation within
a realistic timeline, not even where public transportation networks are excellent. Thus,
the included urban spaces need to be easily accessible by public transport and the time
factor is essential, as public transportation will take its own time, including waiting at
stations. Group size is another challenge, as public transportation and keeping the group
together limits the number of participants in each group more than walking by foot. It is
also important to consider providing everyone with an equal opportunity to participate in
the course and field experience. In this case, all participants were university students and
all of them had personal public transport monthly cards, which Ehrström considered an
important prerequisite for organizing a deliberation by public transport. Due to time
challenges – including dependence on public transport timetables, walking between
stations, and the spots for deliberation – six hours was considered the minimum time
required for such a deliberation; more specifically, it needs to be considered a full-day
course element, including lunch break. In contrast, a traditional Development Walk (on
foot) normally consists of two hours of walking and observing, with five to six stops along
the route, followed by a common discussion/deliberation (usually another 1.5–2 hours).
Informal discussions between stops while walking was more inhibited as ‘walking’ to a
large extent involved moving by public transport and shorter walks to and from stops.
The course language was English and the participants were both domestic German
and international students. In this course, an interdisciplinary approach was utilised
mainly in lectures on the different pillars of sustainability and various definitions of social
sustainability as well as two full-day seminars that focused on rather different topics
(challenges related to urban transformation processes in different districts, and the social
role of popular culture) and their connection to (social) sustainability challenges. Being
the first pilot experience, more systematic analysis of student feedback would have been
valuable. However, due to the small number of participants (seven), a more systematic
analysis was not considered to be that meaningful and questionnaires were not utilised
before and after the course. Student feedback was still essential and during the final course
meeting, students were given the task to orally comment on the setup of the course, course
content, and particularly the seminar on urban transformation and experiences of place-
based learning in urban environments. The course administrator also did emphasise that
all feedback, positive and negative, was valuable and important to consider when
planning any follow-up course. All seven students’ comments regarding the setup of the
course were positive, particularly regarding the place-based course element (Public
Transportation Walk). Even though the experiences were not systematically analysed,
this is still valuable information.
Further, this course strongly focused on the social dimension of sustainability and,
thus, mainly on the complexity of sustainability from a social perspective. Mainly
concentrating on one dimension, but with introduction and awareness of the different
dimensions of sustainability, may be a best-case alternative for one-lecturer courses,
while a multi-lecturer version allows for a wider, more multidimensional and
interdisciplinary handling of the very complex issues of sustainable development.
A few of the same students in the above course also participated in a larger
(approximately 20 participants) Studentlab experience in Hamburg 2019 – also at the
Faculty of Education, University of Hamburg – and was organised as a two-day course
element for participants in three different master study courses. This, in turn, was a mini-
version of studentlab Deliberative Walks and a pilot experiment of how a studentlab
Deliberative Walk would work as a course element and in a two-day version instead of a
full course version. If a full course is too difficult to arrange, a course element or weekend
exercise might be easier to include in the curriculum. Nevertheless, a two-day version
(methodology and citizens’ jury elements day 1, Development Walk and deliberation
elements day 2) includes the same main elements as a full-scale studentlab Deliberative
Walks (for this, see Ehrström, 2020).
A post-course questionnaire and written comments by participating students reveal
that, as expected, the largest drawback and challenge for a mini (short) version is the
(limiting) time factor; participants particularly found the deliberation element and
conclusions stressful due to very tight time limits for group work and presentations,
especially for reaching common conclusions, while all other elements worked well and
the overall experience was positive. It is important to consider, if opting for a shorter two-
day version, that sufficient time is divided among all elements of the deliberation. Higher
education students will obtain an understanding of combining different learning methods
and Deliberative methods in a two-day experience, but may be frustrated if deliberation
and conclusion elements are hurried. This can be counter-productive, even though the
overall experience of this pilot was clearly positive.
The student groups are not always diverse, and the environment can be the campus.
However, as these two examples reveal, courses or course elements do not need to be
constrained to campus and can also include a wider learning environment. It does not
even have to be in close vicinity of universities, but can even be multidistrict oriented, if
the infrastructure (like local public transportation system and access) and course planning
allows for such alternatives.
Based on these findings, we present the results of a student semester project in Stuttgart,
Germany. Fourteen social work students at Ludwigsburg Protestant University of Applied
Sciences were assigned the research project of identifying the needs and interests of
marginalised groups in the midst of an ongoing transformation process in one of
Stuttgart’s inner city districts. The project is linked to the International Building
Exhibition (IBA) 2027 that is currently being prepared in the Stuttgart region and will be
presented to the public in 2027. Kersting (2021) notes that participatory tools have been
developed in Germany due to the increased importance of sustainability in the public
sphere and the demand for more direct and Deliberative forms of participation from the
climate movement or nature conservation associations. Not surprisingly, the aim of IBA
2027 is to encourage participatory practices and foster dialogue among residents, urban
planners, and policymakers to collaboratively establish a sustainable and inclusive urban
environment. IBA projects and districts have been identified throughout the Stuttgart
region to achieve this objective. An example of such a project is the urban quarter called
Leonhardsvorstadt.
Leonhardsvorstadt comprises two distinct neighbourhoods separated by the Züblin
parking garage. To the east of the garage lies the opulent Bohnenviertel, while to the west
is Leonhardsviertel, commonly referred to as the ‘red light district’. In comparison to the
entire city, Leonhardsvorstadt reports a substantially larger percentage of individuals with
immigrant backgrounds and welfare beneficiaries. In contrast, the district has a below-
average proportion of children and young people as well as green and open spaces
(Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart, 2020, p. 36). Moreover, the redevelopment or redesign of
the current Züblin parking garage area is planned as part of IBA 2027. This location is
viewed as a ‘key area’ (IBA, 2023) and a future centre for the community with increased
permeability between the two neighbourhoods.
Rolf Ahlrichs has been aiding the transformation process of Leonhardsvorstadt since
the winter semester of 2020 by conducting theory–practice seminars for social work
students in their third and fourth semesters. In the summer semester of 2022, it was
decided to incorporate the method of Deliberative Walks. The method was selected for
social work education as it combines community and social space orientation. The 14
students were divided into 4 research groups, each of which was tasked with investigating
a specific target group and focusing on a distinct theme, including prostitution,
safeguarded areas for women, and viewpoints of children and adolescents regarding the
district. The groups were formed on the basis of the students’ individual interests. The
students obtained a better understanding of different living situations in the district as
well as individual perspectives on social and political necessities. The primary research
inquiry was how the area around the Leonhardskirche (a church) and the Züblin parking
garage could become a space for the community and include marginalised groups. The
results were documented via scientific posters, which were exhibited in the district and at
a public event as well as in the academic community to introduce our research approach.
A project report was created by the students to reflect on the research process.
During the seminar, the method ‘Deliberative Walks’ was presented for the first time.
It was explained by Peter Ehrström that the full use of this method may not always be
required, as the matter at hand could also be addressed through either a theoretically
focused approach (citizens’ jury) or a task-oriented technique (Development Walk). It
was evident that implementing a full execution of the method during the seminar was
impracticable due to time limitations. Consequently, the students elected to carry out
Development Walks.
Initially, it was required that the students contact the target groups for their walks.
The plan was to take walks through the neighbourhood, with four to five stops in which
the experts provided information that focused on transformation processes in the
neighbourhood, which were exemplified at each stop.
The first group of students focused on young children in primary school. They
wanted to find out where these children play in the neighbourhood, how they navigate
their environment, and what their preferences are for the neighbourhood. To engage with
the children, the students chose to work with a youth centre and the local primary school.
The students organised a walk around significant sites, such as the church, skate park,
Züblin parking garage, school, and red-light district. Four children enthusiastically
participated in the walk. Experts provided insightful ideas at each location, sparking lively
discussions between the children and experts. Additionally, students utilised the time
between sites for one-on-one conversations with the more reserved children. The students
concluded that the research methodology served as a reliable tool for initiating dialogue
with people who would not usually express their opinions. Children, in particular, are an
intriguing cohort, as they are often consulted but rarely considered to be specialists in
matters relating to a place. The discussions documented by the students suggest that the
children explicitly communicated their expectations for the future of their neighbourhood
and simultaneously provided insight into their needs. For the redevelopment of
Leonhardsviertel, the children’s priorities were mentioned to be safety in the
neighbourhood, a park with sufficient green spaces and seating, designated areas for safe
play approved by their parents, and safe streets where they can walk independently.
The second group conducted a survey of young people in the district. The research
method was slightly modified and supplemented with additional techniques, including
the needle, photo, and neighbourhood inspection methods (Deinet & Krisch, 2002). The
young people mainly determined the route of the walk, which was guided by the
significant places they had identified using the needle method. During the walk, the young
people were asked to use their mobile devices to take a picture of something that they felt
best represented the place. Immediately, the individuals implemented the interpretation
and identified the reasons for their selection as well as their personal associations with
the visible elements. Initially, contact was made with several schools and youth
organisations, but only young people from one particular organisation were present at the
agreed meeting place. This highlights one of the complications of conducting research
with young people. The walk was carried out by five participants aged between 14 and
18 years. In line with the abovementioned group, the locations visited during the tour
included the Züblin parking garage, the skate park, a football pitch, the school, and the
red-light district. At each station, there were different prompts and opportunities to
stimulate central questions. Looking back, the students found the method fascinating and
varied, although they highlighted the challenges of motivating young people to engage
with this format and make commitments with them. However, the walk revealed certain
positive connotations inherent in the area (such as a sense of familiarity) while also
highlighting the existence of detrimental aspects (such as the prevalence of gang-related
activity in the area), as well as high levels of police surveillance, particularly of young
people. It was noted that young people were faced with a lack of adequate space or
facilities.
The original plan for the third group of students was to take a walk with the police.
However, this was not possible due to lack of permission from the police station
management. Instead, the students resorted to the original methodological roots of
Development Walks (Safety Walks) to highlight the safety of women in
Leonhardsvorstadt. The study aimed to investigate the safety of women in a
neighbourhood across a wide range of age groups. Women who lived in, frequently
visited, or stayed in the district were encouraged to participate. The research question was
related to identifying places in Leonhardsvorstadt where women feel safe or unsafe and
the factors that influence their perceptions. In order to obtain meaningful results, the
group of students decided not to specify the route but let the three participating women
aged between 25 and 60 years determine it. The church (Leonhardskirche) was used as a
starting point to discuss subjective feelings of safety. The women then visited places that
they felt were less safe and then ventured to places that they felt were safer. Lighting was
found to be important in creating a sense of safety, but litter, dark street sections, and
visual obstructions, such as art or plants in public spaces, created insecurity. It is
important to consider the presence of people in public spaces. Perceptions of safety differ
between the red-light district, where large crowds and police presence contribute to a
sense of safety, and the adjacent affluent residential area, which is perceived as unsafe
due to the prevalence of lonely streets at night. In their project synopsis, the students
reflected on the inequalities that exist in planning processes. They recognised
Development Walks with marginalised groups as an important method of involving those
without a voice in political issues.
The fourth student project group investigated sex work in the Leonhardsviertel red-
light district. The students' practical planning included a theoretical discussion on sex
work, exploring the district to identify the population groups associated with sex work,
and contacting experts to provide input for discussions during the walk, with the aim of
including different viewpoints. The students attempted to contact the sex workers through
social workers at a counselling centre to encourage their participation. None of the local
sex workers agreed to participate in the walk. However, the group managed to engage a
wide range of actors in the district who are either directly or indirectly involved in the
issue of sex work. Two social workers who support sex workers in the area, two bar
owners, a brothel owner, a member of the German parliament with roots in
Leonhardsviertel, and a journalist participated in the walk. The stops on this walk were a
counselling centre for sex workers, two bars, and a brothel. During the walk, very
different positions on sex work were expressed. The atmosphere was characterised by a
high level of emotional intensity, particularly in relation to the divergent political stances
on the legal regulation of sex work. However, all participants agreed that the red light
district should be preserved in the future, despite differing opinions on sex work itself.
The name of the ongoing transformation and planning project for the ‘Neue Mitte’
(new centre) area suggests a comprehensive process of transformation and gentrification.
This is not desirable for any of the participants in the four student projects. Finding
common ground and identifying a least common denominator can be a crucial first step
in discussing the future of the neighbourhood. It can also increase the likelihood of
addressing numerous challenges and creating opportunities to improve the social situation
and local sustainability in a contested urban space, despite significant differences in local
interests. The walks demonstrate how to tackle major challenges and find common
ground. Action and effective communication can improve local social sustainability in a
contested urban area. By bringing together different perspectives and working together in
structured activities, progress and social sustainability can be achieved. Therefore, it is
crucial to initiate communication and discussion regarding the common future of this
urban space.
The starting point for the above examples in Hamburg and Stuttgart was Deliberative
Walks (which includes Development Walks and Citizens Jury methods) and
Development Walks methods. However, these methods were varied and modified in the
student examples. In the following section, we present the differences between the
methods presented and discuss the possible applications of these for adult education.
The use of different walk-centric and walk-inclusive methods in society can also be
argued as to be like a ladder-like learning process, where democratisation and the interest
to deepen participation by advancing to more demanding and theory-oriented
deliberations increases the civic learning process towards active citizenship and informed
participation in deliberative processes. The specifics of these three steps in the learning
process ladder leads from more in situ-observation oriented to more in situ and
theoretically oriented methods and are expected to be followed by a subsequent step of
theoretically oriented deliberative methods, which are based on interacting with experts,
stakeholders, and decision-makers. A step-by-step process increases the interest and
knowledge to interact in these processes for more vulnerable civic groups that otherwise
easily choose not to participate or are not invited to participate. In this manner, walk-
centric and walk-inclusive methods may play a more structured role in the
democratisation process in cityscapes.
The hypothesis for Development Walks is that the learning process is strengthened
by in situ observations of specific situations and spaces. Simultaneously, complex
planning issues, for example, are concretised. This makes Development Walks a walk-
centric method rather than a walk-inclusive one. Interviews reveal that the learning
process and knowledge of planning issues – specifically of the place itself – increased
through the participation in this walk-centric deliberation. It was also a positive learning
experience (Raisio & Ehrström, 2017). As a method element, in Deliberative Walks and
studentlab Deliberative Walks, the Development Walk element has commonly been
regarded as the most positive one (Ehrström, 2020). Development Walks have been
identified as an important method for citizen participation: ‘One walk produced several
suggestions for (re)development… A common walk gives the (participants) opportunity
to discuss, recollect, and create new ideas’ (Ehrström & Katajamäki, 2013, p. 76).
In contrast, the Deliberative Walks method is a walk-inclusive method, as it combines
place-based in situ-observations (walk) with theoretical in-class elements (citizens’ jury).
However, the walk element in Deliberative Walks and studentlab Deliberative Walks
have also been identified as the most important element for participants own learning
processes (Ehrström, 2020). Based on these findings, it is argued that including a walk
element in deliberations can lower the threshold for participation for more vulnerable
groups in society. Then, a walk-centric deliberation is argued to lower that threshold for
participation even further and is, therefore, considered a low-threshold entrance to
participation and a civic learning process for inclusion and more active citizenship in
transformation processes. Typically, a few representatives of planning authorities may
also dismiss issues for deliberation as being too difficult and complex for ordinary
citizens. However, Ehrström and Katajamäki (2013) argue that experiences from citizens’
jury and Development Walks reveal that citizens are good at being able to have diverse
opinions and creatively consider important questions if given the opportunity and
structured procedures to do so.
In our scientific evaluation and analysis of the students’ project reports in Stuttgart,
it was observed that the walk-centric method had been modified through the students’
projects. These modifications have influenced our methodology of walk-centric methods
and the development of a method called Voice-Resonance Walks, which we define in the
following manner:
Facilitated by walk leader(s), group-specific participants proceed through a pre-defined
route with a selected numbers of stops that are chosen based on both/either facilitator-led
identification of critical stops and/or participant-proposed stops, record reflections, and
discuss their surroundings, giving resonance to the arguments of others, after which
participants develop common proposals for development, or least common denominator(s)
that participants agree on, and communicate this to public officials.
In contrast to Development Walks, Voice-Resonance Walks focus on specific
marginalised target groups whose voices are barely heard in political or public discourse.
In the Voice-Resonance Walks, their voices find resonance – that is, they are heard and
there are answers. This is a first step towards political participation. As visualised in
Figure 1, Voice-Resonance Walks can also play an important role as an entry point for
civic learning processes (to deliberate) for growing active citizenships and strengthen the
participation of vulnerable groups in democratisation processes. The method Voice-
Resonance Walks will now be trialled and further developed in various field studies. This
is assumed to be a suitable method for accompanying transformation processes in cities,
particularly by involving population groups that are otherwise barely represented in
public discussions. However, resonance, only arises when their arguments are not only
heard but also included in political decision-making processes.
Figure 1. Ladder model of walk-centric and walk-inclusive methods. Valuables: ideal
group size, participants and groups, walk-centric or walk-inclusive, theory-elements,
results. Source: authors’ own figure
The examples from Hamburg and Stuttgart demonstrate how sustainability issues can be
problematised and discussed using walk-centric methods. The process involves opinion-
forming and deliberation, which can be applied to other areas of adult education.
Although this particular case involved students, the methodology is transferable to other
groups of people and civic learning processes.
The relationship among political engagement, social participation, and an individual’s
circumstances and access to economic, social, and cultural capital is complex.
Unfortunately, socially disadvantaged groups often face barriers that make it difficult for
them to engage in participatory processes, thereby limiting their ability to participate even
when they are willing to do so. In this paper, walk-centric methods were described; in
particular, Voice-Resonance Walks were found to enable marginalised groups to
represent themselves in a standardised and low-threshold setting, as individual
participants receive the necessary social support to reveal their concerns and articulate
their interests. Adult education could play a key in supporting this process in the public
sphere by organising and offering Voice-Resonance Walks. On the basis of positive
experiences in such rather sheltered processes, marginalised groups can, as a next step,
participate in further deliberation processes. In the process of social emancipation, social
sustainability can be established and marginalised groups become an integral part of the
community and a basis for collective responsibility for one’s own environment is created.
Taken together, these walk-centric methods and course elements contribute to creating an
arsenal of methods that connect place, space, and learning, with a focus on urban (social)
sustainability, an often overlooked and downplayed pillar of sustainability, both in society
and education.
The challenges of the impending change are significant, and it is crucial to involve
as many people and different perspectives as possible. In light of a wider understanding
of social sustainability, it is even more crucial to develop participation opportunities for
all population groups and discuss common solutions. However, previous participation
procedures frequently resulted in the exclusion of specific target groups. Therefore, in
this article, we presented low-threshold walk-centric methods and discussed their
variations; these variations are suitable for involving people in development processes,
thereby turning those affected into participants. Thus, it is evident that adult education is
required to accompany and implement such processes. In doing so, adult education makes
a contribution to the democratisation and sustainability of society.
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship or publication of this article.
Bairner, A. (2011). Urban walking and the pedagogies of the street. Sport, Education and Society, 16,
371-384.
Burns, H., Kelley, S.S., & Spalding, H. (2019). Teaching sustainability: Recommendations for best
pedagogical practices. Journal of Sustainability Education, 19.
https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/28058
Curato, N., Dryzek, J., Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M., & Niemeyer, S. (2017). Twelve key findings in
deliberative democracy research. Daedalus, Symposium on Deliberative Democracy, 146(3), 28-
38. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00444
Davidson, M. (2009). Social sustainability: A potential for politics? Local Environment, 14(7), 607-619.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830903089291
Deinet, U., & Krisch, R. (2002). Der sozialräumliche Blick der Jugendarbeit. Methoden und Bausteine
zur Konzeptentwicklung und Qualifizierung [The socio-spatial view of youth work. Methods and
modules for concept development and qualification]. Leske und Budrich.
Dinkelaker, J. (2023). Krise als Schema der Pädagogisierung der ökologischen Frage: Von den Grenzen
des Wachstums zu den Kipppunkten des Klimawandels [Crisis as a scheme for pedagogising the
ecological question: From the limits of growth to the tipping points of climate change]. In M.
Ebner von Eschenbach, B. Käpplinger, M. Kondratjuk, ,K. Kraus, M. Rohs, B. Niemeyer & F.
Bellinger (Eds.), Re-Konstruktionen – Krisenthematisierungen in der Erwachsenenbildung (pp.
47-58). Barbara Budrich.
Dörre, K. (2022). Nachhaltigkeitsziele - normative Grundlage einer nächsten Gesellschaft [Sustainability
goals - normative basis for the next society]. In S. Neckel, P. Degens & S. Lenz (Eds.), Zukünfte
der Nachhaltigkeit: Band 4. Kapitalismus und Nachhaltigkeit (pp. 197-220). Campus.
Ehrström, P. (2015). Uusi paikallisuus-hanke ja keskusteleva demokratia [The New Locality- project and
Deliberative Democracy] (Report No 11/2015). Settlementtiliitto.
Ehrström, P. (2020). Planning with People: Reflections on Participation and Learning on Deliberative
Walks. In B. Grummell & F. Finnegan (Eds.), Doing Critical and Creative Research in Adult
Education – Case Studies in Methodology and Theory, Research on The Education and Learning
of Adults (Vol. 9, pp. 203-216). Brill/Sense.
Ehrström, P., & Katajamäki, H. (2013). Paikallisuuden ytimessä – Tarkastelussa Vaasan Palosaari [In the
Heart of Locality: A Study of Palosaari, Vaasa]. In I. Luoto, H. Katajamäki & L. Lundström
(Eds.), Oppiva alue, menestyvä alue: Juhlakirja professori Seija Virkkalan 60-vuotispäiväksi
[Learning Region, Successful Region: Festschrift for Professor Seija Virkkala's 60th birthday]
(Acta Wasaensia 275, Aluetiede 12, pp. 61-79). Vaasan yliopisto/Universitas Wasaensis.
Ehrström, P., & Raisio, H. (2014). Deliberative Walks: A New Participatory Method for Urban Planning
[Abstract]. The Institute for Deliberative Democracy, R&D Day 2014, Tampere.
Evans, J., & Jones, P. (2011). The Walking Interview: Methodology, Mobility and Place. Applied
Geography, 31, 849-858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.09.005
Garvin, R. T. (2011). Emotional Responses to the Linguistic Landscape in Memphis, Tennessee: Visual
Perceptions of Public Spaces in Transition (Publication no. 3453588) [Doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. UMI Dissertation Publishing-Proquest LLc.
Griswold, W. (2017). Sustainability, Ecojustice, and Adult Education. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 2017(153), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ACE.20217
Hartz-Karp, J., & Stocker, L. (2013). Deliberative Democracy, a Collaborative Action Oriented Learning
Process for a More Sustainable Future. In L. Shultz & T. Kajner (Eds.), Engaged Scholarship –
The Politics of Engagement and Disengagement, Comparative and International Education (pp.
121-137). Sense Publishers.
Heijnen, I., Stewart, E.J., & Espiner, S. (2022). On the move: the theory and practice of the walking
interview method in outdoor education research. Annals of Leisure Research, 25(4), 529-547.
https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2021.1949734
Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2006). What Is an Authentic Learning Environment. In T. Herrington,
& J. Herrington (Eds.), Authentic Learning Environments in Higher Education (pp. 1-14).
Hershey.
International Building Exhibition [IBA]. (2023). Neue Mitte Leonhardsvorstadt [New centre in
Leonhardsvorstadt]. https://www.iba27.de/projekt/neue-mitte-leonhardsvorstadt/
Kersting, N. (2021). Participatory Democracy and Sustainability. Deliberative Democratic Innovation and
Its Acceptance by Citizens and German Local Councilors. Sustainability, 13(13), 7214.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137214
Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart. (2020). Datenkompass Stadtbezirke Stuttgart 2019/2020 [Data compass for
Stuttgart city districts 2019/2020]. Statistisches Amt.
Lükő, I., & Kollarics, T. (2013). The Significance of Environmental Sustainability in Adult
Environmental Education. International Journal of Environmental Protection, 3, 1-9.
Mezirow, J. (2009). An Overview of Transformative Learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary Theories
of Learning: Learning Theorists in their own Words (pp. 90-105). Routledge.
Middleton, J. (2018). The socialities of everyday urban walking and the “right to the city”. Urban Studies,
55(22), 296-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016649325
Opielka, M. (2023). Soziales Klima: Der Konflikt um die Nachhaltigkeit des Sozialen [Social climate: The
conflict over the sustainability of social issues]. Beltz Juventa.
Prosser, B., Flinders, M., Jennings, W., Renwick, A., Spada, P., Stoker, G., & Ghose, K. (2018).
Pedagogy and Deliberative Democracy: Insights from Recent Experiments in the United Kingdom.
Contemporary Politics, 24(2), 210-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2017.1416259
Raisio, H., & Ehrström, P. (2017). Taking Deliberation to the Streets: Reflections on Deliberative Walks.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 21(4), 27-51.
https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v21i4.11488
Rieckmann, M. (2018). Learning to Transform the World: Key Competencies in Education for
Sustainable Development. In A. Leicht, A. J. Heiss, & W. J. Byun (Eds.), Issues and Trends in
Education for Sustainability Development (pp. 39-59). UNESCO.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261445
Roos, J. (2015). Practical Wisdom: Making and teaching the governance case for sustainability. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 140(1), 117-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.135
Sorkin, M. (2009). Twenty minutes in Manhattan. Reaktion Books.
Springgay, S., & Truman, S. E. (2022). Critical Walking Methodologies and Oblique Agitations of Place.
Qualitative Inquiry, 28(2), 171-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211042355
Stimm, M. (2023). Klimawissen im Ver Handlungsraum – Analyse von Formen kommunikativer
Umgangsweisen im Da-Zwischen [Climate knowledge in the negotiation room - analysing forms
of communicative interaction in the in-between]. In M. Ebner von Eschenbach, B. Käpplinger, M.
Kondratjuk, K. Kraus, M. Rohs, B. Niemeyer & F. Bellinger (Eds.), Re-Konstruktionen –
Krisenthematisierungen in der Erwachsenenbildung (pp. 59-69). Barbara Budrich.
Sumner, J. (2003). Environmental Adult Education and Community Sustainability. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(99), 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.108
Szczepanski, A. (2013). Platsens betydelse fr lrande och undervisning – Ett utomhuspedagogiskt
perspektiv [The importance of place for learning and teaching – An outdoor educational
perspective]. NorDiNa, 9(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.623
Taylor, E. W. (2009). Fostering Transformative Learning. In J. Mezirow, E.W.A. Taylor (Eds.),
Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace and Higher Education
(pp. 3-17). Jossey Bass.
Truman, S. E., & Springgay S. (2016). Propositions for walking research. In K. Powell, P. Bernard & L.
Mackinley (Eds.), International handbook for intercultural arts (pp. 259-267). Routledge.
UNESCO. (2018). Sustainable Development. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education- sustainable-
development/what-is-esd/sd
Wolff, L-A. (2015). Det Hllbara Ledarskapets Komplexitet: En Etisk Utmaning Fr Utbildningssektorn
[The complexity of sustainable leadership: An ethical challenge for the educational sector]. In M.
Uljens (Eds.), Pedagogiskt Ledarskap: Teori, Forskning Och Skolutveckling—Educational
Leadership: Theory, Research and School Development (pp. 77-102). bo Akademi University.
http://hdl.handle.net/10138/313844
Wolff, L-A., & Ehrström, P. (2020). Social Sustainability and Transformation in Higher Educational
Settings: A Utopia or Possibility? Sustainability, 12(10), 41-76.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104176
