A European lens upon adult and lifelong learning in Asia

In this article, we seek to assess the extent to which adult and lifelong learning policies and practices in Asia have distinctiveness by comparison to those found in western societies, through an analysis of inter-governmental, national and regional policies in the field. We also inform our study through the analysis of the work of organisations with an international remit with a specific focus on Asia and Europe. In one case, the Asia–Europe Meeting Lifelong Learning (ASEM LLL) Hub has a specific function of bringing together researchers in Asia and Europe. In another, the PASCAL Observatory has had a particular focus on one aspect of lifelong learning, that of learning cities, with a concentration in its work on Asia and Europe. We focus on learning city development as a particular case of distinction in the field. We seek to identify the extent to which developments in the field in Asia have influenced and have been influenced by practices elsewhere in world, especially in Europe, and undertake our analysis using theories of societal learning/the learning society, learning communities and life-deep learning. We complement our analysis through assessment of material contained in three dominant journals in the field, the International Journal of Lifelong Education, the International Review of Education and Adult Education Quarterly, each edited in the west

Investigating users’ perspectives on the development of bike-sharing in Shanghai

High levels of car dependence have caused tremendous challenges for sustainable transport development. Transport planners, therefore, seek ways of replacing motor vehicles, as well as increasing the proportion of active travel. The bike-sharing scheme can be seen as an effective way of doing so, particularly in Asian cities. The aim of this paper is to investigate users’ perspectives on the development of bike-sharing using Shanghai as an example. Semi-structured interviews are used to examine the main factors motivating and impeding the development of the bike-sharing scheme in Shanghai. Our findings show that convenience, saving time and financial savings are the major motivations; whereas problems with bicycles being poorly maintained and abused by users, operational issues, financial issues and an unsuitable business model are the major obstacles. In addition, the findings also suggest that a public and private partnership could be the best option for running a sustainable bike-sharing scheme with clear areas of responsibility. Financial incentives, a bicycle-friendly infrastructure, regular operational management and supportive policies should be prioritised. In order to achieve the targets set by the Shanghai Master Plan 2035, transport planners and policymakers should integrate the bike-sharing scheme within the wider active travel system