Green clashes: cultural dynamics of scales in sustainability transitions in European peripheries

Sustainability transition can be described as an 'institutionalised change' to ecologically more sustainable products, production methods and systems in different industrial fields and disciplines. According to Frank Geels et al. (2017, p. 466) the goal of this change is the emergence of 'a new regime, which becomes institutionalised and increasingly taken for granted'. Sustainability transition is often perceived as a multi-layered process. As such, the change encompasses both macro and micro levels, and is accepted by various agents at different stages (see, e.g., Young, 2013; Markard et al. 2012). A multi-level perspective (MLP) understands transition dynamics as exchanges between macro-level socio-technological landscapes (digitalisation, urbanisation, ideological frameworks), socio-technological regimes (transportation, oil production) and grassroot sustainability transitions (niches, movements) (e.g., Geels, 2011). The model has proved its relevance in catching the historical institutionalisation of new sustainable methods and ideas in different sectors. However, sustainability transitions do not occur only as concrete changes such as technological innovations or new practices, but as shifts in the collective but contested systems of meaning-making (STRN, 2019). They are processes that are interpreted and given meaning by site-specific actors/stakeholders representing different motivations and goals. Thus, transitions also entail changes between different knowledge regimes and contexts, that is, between cultures. For example, to explain the geographical or national logic behind counteractions or climate denialism, the research should also address scalar dynamics and how culture works between different agents at different levels. It is commonplace to hear experts say that 'cultural change' is needed to achieve a shift to a more sustainable future (Stephenson, 2018, p. 245). Cultural change is regarded as shifts in the collective but contested systems of meaning, which can be both cognitive 'models of and normative 'models for action (STRN, 2019). This cultural dimension in sustainability transitions produces 'unexpected curves' in their development, as the process is understood according to various rationalities from business life to social movements (Geels et al. 2017). However, patterns to explicate unexpected curves caused by culture in responding to pro-environmental ideas are still rare or one-sided (Howell, 2014, Arnold, 2018, p. 3). Case studies on cultural change have largely explored either site-specific and personal experiences or macro-scalar phenomena (see Hards, 2012; Arnold, 2018). MLP research has also often focused on a limited range of actors such as firms involved in energy systems or policymakers (Geels et al. 2017). Less attention has been paid to how sustainability outcomes are inevitably shaped in multiple contexts and in interrelation, and even by conscious political regulation between different spatial scales (see also Stephenson, 2018). In this study, sustainability transitions are understood as processes that are interpreted and given meaning by site-specific actors/stakeholders representing different motivations and goals. Culture is not restricted or even analytically divided into one scale as are, e.g., landscape-level narratives or locally specific cultural ecosystems. Culture is a cognitive scale or knowledge-regime including ideas of whom you can trust and, accordingly, whom you are expected to blame for environmental actions. This study seeks to create a framework for cultural analysis by creating a crossover conceptual approach to culture in different scales by combining and modifying some elements of MLP logic with the idea of Eriksen (2017) of the 'clashes of scales'. Ways of utilising the concept are explored more widely as a tool to understand locally bound ideas, strategies and motivations, as well as the socio-cultural environment from which they arise. The study emphasises that thoughts and emotions, as well as interpersonal relations and interactions, are always reordered through their social environments. Hence, culture and its impact on environmental discourses is shaped by scalar dynamics: seemingly shared ideas are reinterpreted constantly within multi-level and multi-sited knowledge structures. Also in question are uneven power relations and the polarisations between global centres and local peripheries. Eriksen (2017, p. 152) has pointed out that 'the increasing predominance of large-scale systems has created clashes of scale where the local level repeatedly conflicts with the uniformization and standardisation from above'. The more general sustainability solutions are, the more they erase patterns that are local and based on a specific ethos, and may cause resistance. Research needs to address the roots of cultural representations by following the flows of culture and thought through networks and in various spatial places. The following cultural traits present in local cultural ecosystems illuminate the circulation of ideas: how culture evolves, changes and is interpreted in various loci demarcated by different assets related to power, knowledge and opportunities for action (Marcus, 1995; Watson and Till 2014). Yet, it is important to recognise how transitions occur simultaneously in various scalar positions. Centre-periphery patterns, as an elementary part of European mindscapes, are examined as a case for studying scalar dynamics. The relationship between the two seemingly opposite ends illuminates the various ways in which 'commonly shared' sustainability goals and ideas on local strengths given from above are adopted at the local level. This indicates that distances and matters of interpretation are culturally constructed, and that responses are also place-bound and represent particular local conditions/environments. The centre-periphery question highlights the clash of viewpoints, which emanate from different perspectives (knowledge regimes), and which are also given a different value in global and/or national discussions on the means and goals of sustainability transitions.

The paper situates its contribution within sustainability transitions research (MLP: Geels 2011; Geels et al. 2017; Markard et al. 2012), arguing that existing models explain institutionalisation but lack tools to capture cultural dynamics across scales. It draws on STRN (2019) to frame transitions as shifts in contested meaning systems, and incorporates Eriksen’s (2017) idea of ‘clashes of scales’ to interpret tensions between global centres and local peripheries. The authors review strands on sustainability cultures and communication (Stephenson 2018; Arnold 2018; Hards 2012; Howell 2014; Bulkeley et al. 2016), the politics of environmental discourses (Dryzek 2005; Laclau & Mouffe 1985), planning reinvention and buzzwords (Reimer 2013), and petrocultures (Wilson et al. 2017; Urry 2004). They mobilise concepts of cultural ecosystems and ecology (Finke 2013; Wilson 2013), place attachment (Devine-Wright 2013), and centre–periphery relations (Keating et al. 2004; Göle 2000) to explain how cultural representations mediate sustainability adoption, resistance, and reinterpretation across scales.

The study reanalyses empirical data from the authors’ previous projects to examine how local actors interpret and respond to sustainability agendas originating from ‘upscale’ centres. It employs ethnographic and cultural political analysis across three case contexts: North Karelia (Eastern Finland), sparsely populated areas in Central Finland and Northern Sweden, and Sardinia (Italy). Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, participant observations, and analysis of public documents. Cases were integrated within the Academy of Finland-funded FST project (2016–2019). A meta-analysis/synthesis of qualitative results across multiple field sites was conducted not to generalise but to illuminate the variety of local reactions and challenges. Prior studies’ results, recognised as place-bound and addressing study-specific questions, are brought under new joint research questions to analyse how different—sometimes contradictory—interpretations of sustainability emerge and how locals challenge hegemonic narratives through ‘clashes of cognitive scales’.

- Culture crosscuts spatial scales and functions as transitional corridors, anchoring ‘floating sustainability’ to locally specific mentalities of rule and meaning-making. - Centre–periphery dynamics significantly shape scalar interpretations and responses to sustainability. Peripheries act as both sites of resistance and innovation, mediating between global ideas and local ethos. - Both ‘green’ and ‘brown’ reactions are culturally articulated, strategically mobilised, and can be locally produced variants of broader hegemonies: • Brown reactions exploit disaffection with environmental control, using memory politics (e.g., Winter War metaphors opposing Koli National Park establishment) to undermine sustainability aims. • Green reactions employ ‘different strengths’ narratives (space, clean air, darkness) to capitalise on peripheral assets, yet may create exclusionary ‘green distinctions’ and face local skepticism (e.g., HiKuMa project’s marketisation of ‘silence’ in North Karelia met with irony due to associations with out-migration and industrial decline). - Rural residents in Finland and Sweden contest stereotypes of unsustainable sparsely populated living, reframing car use as essential and more efficient, and emphasising low consumption and links to agrarian, self-sufficient traditions. - Comparative case of farmers shows cultural variance in adopting external standards: Finnish (Kainuu) farmers tend to trust and follow formal EU organic regulations and cease certification if noncompliant; Sardinian farmers often view EU/central regulation as oppressive, asserting their traditional practices are already ‘organic’, and that formal rules undermine genuine sustainability. - Hegemonic petroculture and urban-centric environmental narratives create cultural standards difficult for peripheries to match; nevertheless, cultural interpretations at local scales can both resist and integrate hegemonic ideas, influencing transition pathways and outcomes. - The diffusion of sustainability ideas proceeds via discursive chains across organisations, policies, and minds; breaks in these chains (symbolic or institutional) explain ‘unexpected curves’ in transitions.

The findings demonstrate that sustainability transitions are inherently cultural, contested, and scalar: meanings are continually reinterpreted across global, regional, and local knowledge regimes. This addresses the research aim by showing that MLP’s socio-technical levels are insufficient without attention to cultural-ideological landscapes and centre–periphery relations. Local cultural ecosystems filter, translate, or resist upscale sustainability agendas, producing both facilitative and obstructive effects. The symbolic struggle between green and brown reactions is not merely about technology or policy but about identity, memory, and status, with peripheries negotiating ambivalence between path-dependent traditions and politically rationalised methods. Recognising these dynamics helps explain counterintuitive local responses (e.g., opposition to conservation framed through national memory; pride in proximity to wind farms; skepticism toward commodified ‘silence’) and variations across contexts (e.g., differing trust in institutions among Finnish vs. Sardinian farmers). Incorporating cultural analysis into transition studies reveals how hegemonic narratives are fragmented and reworked through discursive chains, suggesting that aligning interventions with local cultural-ideological landscapes is critical to avoid resistance and unintended consequences.

The paper contributes a culturally sensitive analytical framework that integrates elements of MLP with Eriksen’s ‘clashes of scales’ to examine centre–periphery dynamics in sustainability transitions. It shows that culture anchors floating sustainability across scales and that peripheral states of mind mediate ideological motivations into local reactions, generating both green and brown articulations. The authors propose applying a holistic, multi-level cultural approach that maps local cultural-ideological landscapes and everyday environments to anticipate end-user responses and potential ‘unexpected curves’. Understanding interrelated local representations alongside socio-technical regimes can reduce surprises, improve the design of interventions, and support ‘just transition’. Future research should extend multi-sited ethnographic and cultural-political analyses across diverse peripheries, further trace discursive chains linking organisations, policies, and publics, and develop methods to align sustainability initiatives with local cultural ecosystems without reproducing stereotypes or exclusionary ‘green distinctions’.

The empirical basis synthesises prior, place-bound case studies focused on specific questions in North Karelia, sparsely populated areas in Finland and Sweden, and Sardinia. The meta-analysis is not intended to provide generalisations about local reactions but to illuminate variation, and results are context-dependent. Data were qualitative (interviews, observations, public documents), and reanalysis across sites may reflect study-specific constraints and uneven comparability.