This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Communi y esilience and cul u al sus ainabili y in wo Finnish u ban neighbou hoods
© 2023 he Au ho s
Published e sion
Luonila, Me i; Kumpulainen, Kaisu; Leppänen, Aino; Koskinen-Koi is o, Ee ika;
Ruokolainen, Olli
Luonila, M., Kumpulainen, K., Leppänen, A., Koskinen-Koi is o, E., & Ruokolainen, O. (2023).
Communi y esilience and cul u al sus ainabili y in wo Finnish u ban neighbou hoods. F on ie s
in Poli ical Science, 5, A icle 1213240. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
2023
TYPE O iginal Resea ch
PUBLISHED 03 Augus 2023
DOI 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Kiwon Hong,
Ko ea Na ional Uni e si y o A s,
Republic o Ko ea
REVIEWED BY
Ahmad Su u i,
Se ang Raya Uni e si y, Indonesia
Nikos Lekakis,
Uni e si y o C e e, G eece
*CORRESPONDENCE
Me i Luonila
me i.luonila@cupo e.fi
†These au ho s ha e con ibu ed equally o
his wo k
RECEIVED 27 Ap il 2023
ACCEPTED 27 June 2023
PUBLISHED 03 Augus 2023
CITATION
Luonila M, Kumpulainen K, Leppänen A,
Koskinen-Koi is o E and Ruokolainen O (2023)
Communi y esilience and cul u al
sus ainabili y in wo Finnish u ban
neighbou hoods. F on . Poli . Sci. 5:1213240.
doi: 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
COPYRIGHT
©2023 Luonila, Kumpulainen, Leppänen,
Koskinen-Koi is o and Ruokolainen. This is an
open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms
o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License
(CC BY). The use, dis ibu ion o ep oduc ion
in o he o ums is pe mi ed, p o ided he
o iginal au ho (s) and he copy igh owne (s)
a e c edi ed and ha he o iginal publica ion in
his jou nal is ci ed, in acco dance wi h
accep ed academic p ac ice. No use,
dis ibu ion o ep oduc ion is pe mi ed which
does no comply wi h hese e ms.
Communi y esilience and
cul u al sus ainabili y in wo
Finnish u ban neighbou hoods
Me i Luonila1*, Kaisu Kumpulainen2†, Aino Leppänen1†,
Ee ika Koskinen-Koi is o3† and Olli Ruokolainen1†
1Cen e o Cul u al Policy Resea ch Cupo e, Helsinki, Finland, 2Depa men o Social Sciences and
Philosophy, Facul y o Humani ies and Social Sciences, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, Finland,
3Depa men o His o y and E hnology, Facul y o Humani ies and Social Sciences, Uni e si y o
Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, Finland
This s udy explo es how u ban cul u al en i onmen s, and pa icula ly hei
cul u al p o ision and o ms o pa icipa ion, can os e cul u al sus ainabili y
in u ban communi ies, namely neighbou hoods. Concep ually, he a icle
si ua es cul u al sus ainabili y wi hin he concep o communi y esilience o
acili a e an unde s anding o he e e yday li es o esiden s and conce ns
esiden s’ expec a ions o he cul u al en i onmen and oppo uni ies o cul u al
pa icipa ion in wo case neighbou hoods in Jy äskylä Finland. D awing on
he mixed-me hods app oach o he s udy ou findings show ha di e en
cul u al ac i i ies and communi ies can be cen al o p omo ing sus ainable
u ban de elopmen . Communi y esilience as a sense o belonging like
neighbou hood- ela ed iden i y and also as a sense o owne ship o place seems
s ong in a ious ways, and ela ion o he cul u al pa icipa ion can be iden ified.
Howe e , om u ban cul u al policy pe spec i e, he low- h eshold pa icipa ion
and oppo uni ies o g ass oo s cul u al ac i i y seem an unde exploi ed esou ce
in he ci ies, especially when he concep o sus ainabili y is unde conside a ion.
Mo eo e , he nego ia ion and communica ion be ween communi y ac o s and
public o icials dese es a lo o a en ion while he implemen a ion o u ban
cul u al policy is on ocus. F om u ban cul u al policy pe spec i e, i is impo an
o find new ways o measu e he di ec and indi ec impac s o policies.
Acco ding o findings o he s udy holis ic analysis o esiden s, ac o s and
ins i u ions iewpoin s helps us o unde s and he p ac ises and p ocesses ela ed
o communi y esilience. All his dese es mul idisciplina y esea ch and join
eflec ion. This app oach assis s o make sense o how u ban cul u al policy and
cul u al pa icipa ion can suppo communi y esilience a communi y le el.
KEYWORDS
sus ainabili y, cul u al sus ainabili y, cul u al policy, communi y, neighbou hood,
communi y esilience
1. In oduc ion
No dic wel a e socie ies a e acing se e al global phenomena ha h ea en clima e,
sa e y, and social cohesion. Addi ionally, dispa i ies be ween egions and di e en
popula ion g oups as well as ongoing s uc u al e o ms challenge he esilience, i.e.,
he lexibili y o change, o di e en ac o s, a di e en le els and sec o s o socie y.
Concomi an ly, in ecen decades discou ses on sus ainabili y ha e emphasised he essen ial
ole o local communi ies as amewo ks o sus ainabili y (Meadows e al., 1972; see also
Pu nam, 1995,2000). Ac i e communi ies o med by ac i e ci izens a e a gued o ha e a
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 01 on ie sin.o g
Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
undamen al ole in os e ing change (Jeanno e, 2003;Jeanno e
and Duxbu y, 2015) and imp o ing esilience (Callaghan and
Col on, 2008;Senne , 2018). Ac i i y o communi ies helps o ind
solu ions o socie al challenges acknowledging sha ed pe spec i es,
alues, and p inciples. Communi y esilience has been ound o
p o ide a solid basis o genuine and sus ainable pa ne ship
be ween he a ious sec o s o socie y in gene al and in he ci ies
in pa icula (Lekakis and Liddle, 2022;Van de Vaa , 2022).
Cul u e has his o ically been a cons i u i e o ce o u ban
de elopmen (UNESCO, 2016, p. 205). As he “’glue’ o simila i y
ha g ounds ou sociabili y” (Kong, 2009, p. 3), cul u e is
an ac i i y ha p o ides oppo uni ies o sel - ul illing and
meaning ul communal ac i i ies. The social dimension o cul u al
ac i i ies can be de ined as a democ a ic unc ion ha enables
social inclusion and os e s he de elopmen o communi y bonds
(Kangas and Sokka, 2015) and s eng hens inclusion in socie y
(Jeanno e, 2003). Cul u al ac i i ies and communi ies migh be
posi ed as cen al o p omo ing sus ainable u ban de elopmen
(Jeanno e and Duxbu y, 2015;Ky ön ii a and Wallin, 2022). In
his sense, and in esponse o he ongoing global phenomena,
s eng hening communi y esilience dese es mo e a en ion in
u ban cul u al policy.
Goal 11 o UN Agenda 2030 is o make “ci ies and human
se lemen s inclusi e, sa e, esilien and sus ainable” (UN, 2015).
This goal pu s ci ies unde g owing p essu e o wi hs and he
eali ies o excep ional poli ical ins abili y, clima e change, and
he need o add ess he challenge he building o mo e inclusi e,
sa e, esilien , and sus ainable places o li e (Quinn e al., 2022, p.
271). In Finland, oo, ci ies and municipali ies play an impo an
ole in building a sus ainable u u e bo h locally and na ionally
(Ala-Man ila e al., 2022). A he same ime, he pu sui o
sus ainable de elopmen in he municipali ies should also wo k
o he compe i i eness, de elopmen , and a ac i eness o he
municipali y in he coming yea s and decades (Kun alii o, 2021;
Kes ä ä kaupunki, 2023; see also Agenda2030). Pa icipa ion o
ac i e ci izens as well as co-ope a ion be ween a ious poli ical
ins i u ions and ac o s om di e en sec o s (i.e., widesp ead
collabo a ion and pa icipa ion) a e de ined as essen ial me hods o
each he de ined goals (Kun alii o, 2021). In he ci y o Jy äskylä,
o ins ance, e ms such as pa icipa ion and inclusion occu as key
wo ds in s a egic de elopmen (Luonila and Ruokolainen, 2023).
Addi ionally, cul u e seems o play an impo an ole in he ci y
de elopmen (Ci y o Jy äskylä, 2021a;Ruokolainen e al., 2019).
Thus, social sus ainabili y, pa icipa ion and inclusion a e
ecognised o be essen ial o de eloping sus ainable ci ies (see also
Da low, 1996; e.g., Alessand ia, 2016;Ala-Man ila e al., 2022).
Howe e , as Janco ich and S e enson (2023) a gue, oo o en,
when implemen ing s a egies o social sus ainabili y, he mos
meaning ul ques ions abou who ames he ac ion, o who can
ake pa in he p ocesses o pa icipa ion in gene al, a e igno ed.
Addi ionally, cul u al policy and u ban go e nance a e alleged o
be oo abs ac and placeless wi hou a ulle engagemen and
ep esen a ion in si ua ed con ex s (Miles and Eb ey, 2017;Wa en
and Jones, 2018; see also Luonila and Ruokolainen, 2023).
We ecognise he po en ial o a s and cul u e o s imula ing
he sus ainable de elopmen o ci ies and he long- e m
de elopmen o subu bs (UNESCO, 2016; see also Eu opean
Pa liamen , 2020). Ou pu pose he e is o con ibu e o he
li e a u e on cul u al sus ainabili y by explo ing how u ban
cul u al en i onmen s, and pa icula ly hei cul u al p o ision
and o ms o pa icipa ion, can os e cul u al sus ainabili y in
u ban communi ies, namely neighbou hoods. The aim o he
a icle is o ad ance discou ses on how hese cul u e- ela ed
iewpoin s can be in e p e ed as ways o elabo a e he cu en
unde s anding o cul u al sus ainabili y in an u ban con ex .
Concep ually, he a icle si ua es cul u al sus ainabili y wi hin he
concep o communi y esilience o acili a e an unde s anding o
he e e yday li es o esiden s (Eb ey, 2016) and conce ns esiden s’
expec a ions o he cul u al en i onmen and oppo uni ies o
cul u al pa icipa ion in neighbou hoods. In o he wo ds, we adop
he b oad de ini ion o cul u e (e.g., Me ce , 2002) and see cul u e
as g ounded in he e e yday li ed expe iences wi hin communi ies
and on he ideas o wha is use ul o enjoyable cul u al li e in he
e ms o hese communi ies (Eb ey, 2016, p. 165). In his sense,
he a icle ex ends he cu en li e a u e on cul u al sus ainabili y
and u ban cul u al policy by p o iding a con ex and communi y-
speci ic lenses h ough which he ele ance and po en ial o
cul u al pa icipa ion as a os e ing o ce o cul u al sus ainabili y
can be analysed.
We selec wo subu bs, namely Huh asuo and Kel inmäki
om he ci y o Jy äskylä, Finland as he con ex o ou analysis
and pose he ollowing esea ch ques ion: How do u ban cul u al
policy and cul u al pa icipa ion build communi y esilience a
communi y le el?
The s udy is o ganised as ollows. Fi s , we desc ibe he
heo e ical amewo k o he s udy, ocusing on concep s o
cul u al sus ainabili y and communi y esilience. Second, he
me hodological choices o he s udy a e p esen ed. The indings o
he s udy a e hen discussed in wo pa s. Fi s , we analyse he ways
(u ban) cul u al policy suppo s cul u al pa icipa ion in u ban
neighbou hoods, and i so, how. Second, we ocus on he s a egic
aims o he Ci y o Jy äskylä and esiden s’ cul u al pa icipa ion
in he neighbou hoods and discuss a which le els he p e equisi es
and pa icipa ion os e communi y esilience. Finally, he esul s
a e discussed and conclusions d awn in he inal sec ion.
2. Theo e ical amewo k
2.1. Sus ainabili y in (u ban) cul u al policy
discou ses
A s and cul u e ha e been highligh ed as a i al and e sa ile
esou ce o u ban change and egene a ion in ci ies and u ban
policy since he mid-1980s (e.g., Land y e al., 1996;Ma kusen and
Gadwa, 2010) also in luencing he u banisa ion o cul u al policy
(G odach, 2009,2017). In he ecen li e a u e and policies on
cul u e and ci ies, a s and cul u e a e cha ac e ised as a con ex
o ci izens o pa icipa e in and con ibu e o he de elopmen
o hei communi ies (Ma a asso, 1998;UNESCO, 2012,2016).
Addi ionally, s udies ha e es ablished he c oss-adminis a i e
na u e o cul u e in he de elopmen o ci ies (Hi i-Ijäs e al.,
2020;Mangse , 2020). Discou ses o cul u al policy in u ban con ex
ha e ound o be in e wined wi h o he policies such as social and
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 02 on ie sin.o g
Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
economic policies, while he ocus o policies has been ound o a y
in di e en a eas o ci ies (see also G odach and Loukai ou-Side is,
2007;Bell and O ozco, 2021;Luonila and Ruokolainen, 2023).
In ecen yea s he ocus o u ban cul u al policy has
ans o med om building a c ea i e ci y o achie ing sus ainable
ci ies (Duxbu y and Jeanno e, 2010;Duxbu y e al., 2016); a
end ha signi ican ly in luences u ban cul u al policy. Ques ions
conce ning he ela ion o cul u e and sus ainabili y ha e
ecei ed inc easing a en ion among schola s, decision-make s and
p ac i ione s. Simul aneously, abs ac and ague de ini ions as well
as di e se use o bo h e ms ha e caused a ple ho a o challenges
in he de elopmen o heo e ical concep ualiza ions (Soini and
Bi keland, 2014;Soini and Dessein, 2016).
Soini and Dessein (2016, p. 166–167), aiming o cla i y hese
ague e ms and concep s, iden i ied h ee oles o cul u e in
he scien i ic discou ses o cul u al sus ainabili y. These oles
posi cul u e in sus ainabili y, cul u e o sus ainabili y and
cul u e as sus ainabili y. Acco ding o hese au ho s, he i s
ep esen a ion conside s cul u e as i i had an independen
ole in sus ainabili y. In his ep esen a ion cul u e is conside ed
capi al and an achie emen in de elopmen . In he second
ep esen a ion, cul u e o sus ainabili y, cul u e is seen as a way
o li e. Cul u e is assigned a media ing ole o achie e economic,
social and ecological sus ainabili y. Cul u e o sus ainabili y
sugges s ha bo h ma e ial and imma e ial cul u e a e seen as an
essen ial esou ce o local and egional economic de elopmen .
The hi d ep esen a ion conside s cul u e as semiosis and a
necessa y ounda ion o mee ing he o e all aims o sus ainabili y
conside ing de elopmen as a cul u al p ocess (Ibid). Duxbu y e al.
(2012) supplemen he ep esen a ions o cul u e as capi al and
a way o li e wi h wo u he dimensions. Acco ding o hese
au ho s he meaning o cul u e should be ecognised as an essen ial
binding elemen p o iding he alues emphasising sus ainable
(o unsus ainable) ac i i ies. Addi ionally, hey d aw a en ion
o unde s anding cul u e as a c ea i e exp ession ha p o ides
insigh s on con empo a y socie y, en i onmen al/sus ainabili y
issues and conce ns abou ou u u e (Duxbu y e al., 2012), which
is ou ocus in his s udy.
Undeniably, as Soini and Dessein (2016, p. 1) emphasise, i
is c ucial and equi ed o explici ly in eg a e cul u e in o he
sus ainabili y discou se, as achie ing sus ainabili y goals depend
undamen ally on human accoun s, ac ions and beha iou which
a e, in u n, cul u ally embedded (see also Mason and Tu ne ,
2020). Cul u e is, as Me ce (2002, p. x iii) de ines i , he “ways we
beha e, ea n money, sha e expe iences, li e oge he , communica e
and unde s and di e ence”. Howe e , he “cul u al dimension”, as
Me ce a gues (ibid), is o en pa amoun bu un ecognised beside
he o he s, such as economic, social o en i onmen al policies.
Duxbu y e al. (2017) sha e his iewpoin and p opose ou oles
ha cul u al policy can play in achie ing sus ainable de elopmen .
Acco ding o he au ho s, he ole o cul u al policy is o p o ec
and sus ain cul u al p ac ises and igh s, “g een” he p ocesses
and impac s o cul u al o ganisa ions and indus ies, p omo e
awa eness and ca alyse ac ions o sus ainabili y and clima e change
and enhance “ecological ci izenship”. Howe e , as he au ho s pu
i , he challenge o cul u al policy is how o assis , cons uc and
guide he (cul u al) ac ions in ou socie y along hese co-exis ing
and o e lapping s a egic pa hs owa ds sus ainable de elopmen
(Duxbu y e al., 2017, p. 214).
Indeed, he di ec ion o he u ban cul u al policy discou se
needs e-o ien a ion om i s somewha economic-cen ic
emphasis (see e.g., G odach, 2017) in a mo e comp ehensi e, bu
also communi y and indi idual based di ec ion o os e ecological
ci izenship in ci ies—as Duxbu y and o he s call o (see e.g.,
2017). To con ex ualise he oles o cul u e and cul u al policy
iden i ied in sus ainable discou se, ci ies in gene al and subu bs
in pa icula can be iden i ied as places ha ame he ole and
meaning o cul u e in socie y in speci ic e ms (Miles and Gibson,
2016). Addi ionally, his con ex ualisa ion assis s us in analysing
he in e aces be ween di e en illus a ed ep esen a ions and
dimensions a communi y le el in a eal-li e con ex . I also u ns
he ocus on o how cul u e exis s as a cen al binding elemen
ha p o ides he alues unde lying sus ainable (o unsus ainable)
ac ions in communi ies (Duxbu y e al., 2012,2017 see also P es on
and Gelman, 2020).
Acco ding o Eb ey (2016, p. 165), e e yday li e has been
neglec ed in ecen cul u al policy discou ses in ou ways. Fi s ly,
cul u al policy is d i en op-down by ne wo ks o expe s a he
han being g ounded in he li ed expe iences o he e e yday
(see also de G aa e al., 2015, p. 45–46). Secondly, cul u e has
been ins umen alized o economic pu poses o inc ease he
a ac i eness o ci ies. Thi dly, he “mic o” and “mac o” wo lds
o cul u e a e a ely connec ed in a meaning ul way. Fou hly,
oo much emphasis is pu on indi idual choices o cul u al
consump ion ins ead o ocusing on communal o ms and p ac ises
o cul u e.
In his a icle we cap u e Eb ey’s c i ique and s ess he
meaning o he social dimensions o cul u al ac i i ies o u ban
communi ies. The ole o cul u al ac i i ies in os e ing inclusi i y
is becoming all he mo e ele an gi en he sus ainabili y goals
o ci ies (Quinn e al., 2022, p. 271). Concomi an ly, cul u e and
cul u al pa icipa ion a e ways o gene a e pla o ms o esilien
communi y ha enhance oppo uni ies o de elop sus ainabili y a
communi y le el in he case subu bs o he ci y o Jy äskylä.
2.2. Communi y esilience and cul u e
Resilience can be conside ed in di e en con ex s o le els. We
can alk abou he esilience o socie y, social-ecological sys ems,
communi ies, o indi iduals, based on de ini ions o esilience
om di e en disciplines (B and and Jax, 2007;Lekakis and
Liddle, 2022). Communi y esilience heo ies ha e ocused on
he ans o ma ion communi ies ace a e c isis o change, o
example na u al o economic shock (Shaw, 2012;Ske a , 2013;
F eshwa e , 2015;Kumpulainen e al., 2022). Howe e , he e a e
ensions associa ed wi h he concep o communi y esilience, such
as con inui y and change, esis ance and adap a ion (Mulligan
e al., 2016). Addi ionally, he e has been lo o deba e on local
communi ies and hei exis ence in pos mode n socie ies because
o people’s weake and o e lapping commi men s and globalisa ion
(Mulligan, 2015). Simul aneously, in communi y heo ies he
emphasis has shi ed om communi y as social s uc u e o ocus
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 03 on ie sin.o g
Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
on cul u al and symbolic signi icance (Delan y, 2010;Mulligan,
2015).
Acco ding o Magis (2010), a esilien communi y means
people ha ing con ol o e how o espond o he changes coming
ou side he communi y (Kumpulainen e al., 2022). Addi ionally,
as No is e al. (2008, p. 128) no e, “people in communi ies a e
esilien oge he , no me ely in simila ways”. The o ma ion
o communi y esilience does no ake place om abo e, bu
h ough e e y day p ac ises and in e ac ion be ween people and
communi ies (Kumpulainen e al., 2022). Thus, an ac i e app oach
is he co e alues in he con ex o sus ainable de elopmen . The
need o adap o change and ac i ely pa icipa e in changes is
highligh ed, a he han o y o p e en changes coming om
he ou side. I also means no only he communi y’s s eng h o
adap o ex e nal changes and h ea s, bu also ac i e and s a egic
agency in changing ci cums ances. In a simpli ied way, he esilien
communi y is a s ong and ac i e communi y ha is commi ed o
a common goal, such as keeping i s own neighbou hood sa e y and
ib an , bu also sus ainable. As P es on and Gelman (2020, p. 6)
no e, “we help a ge s ha we eel connec ed o, ha a e a pa o
us, ha we conside “ou s,” and o which we eel esponsible.”
To de ine communi y esilience, i is necessa y o unde s and
he na u e o local communi ies (Mulligan e al., 2016). I is
impo an o emembe ha nowadays local communi ies a e
jus one communi y among o he s and do no bind communi y
membe s as igh ly as hey use o. Pos mode n communi ies a e
cha ac e ised by hei membe s ha ing some common in e es
ha uni es people. In local communi ies, his objec is o en he
place i sel , a illage, o a neighbou hood. The ci ies alk abou
DIY u banism, he ou h sec o o u ban ac i ism (Mäenpää and
Faehnle, 2021), communi y-led de elopmen and illage ac i i ies
in u al a eas (Miles and Eb ey, 2017;Kumpulainen, 2018). The
con ex o ci il socie y and locali y is abou small communi ies,
i.e., associa ions o neighbou hoods, esiden s and dis ic s, o
o ganised o non-o ganised ac o s ope a ing locally. Alongside
he a ious associa ions and local au ho i ies he e a e hi d and
ou h sec o ac o s ocusing on en i onmen al p o ec ion, physical
ac i i y and spo o c ea i e ac i i ies and he p oduc ion o e en s,
o ins ance. Thus, since he concep s o bo h communi y and
esilience a y depending on he con ex (Mulligan e al., 2016),
i is impo an how we de ine esilience and communi y in a
ce ain s udy o policy discou se. Also, when s udying communi y
esilience in a ci y le el, he e a e di e en s akeholde s, oles and
ne wo ks inside he ci y ha in luence he ci y ans o ma ion
(Lekakis and Liddle, 2022).
Explo ing communi ies’ ana omy and mechanisms assis s us
in cap u ing he elemen s o communi y esilience. Being pa
o a local communi y also means belonging o he place and
communica ion wi h o he indi iduals connec ed o he place.
In his s udy ou de ini ion o communi y is based on he
cul u al cons uc ion o a communi y e en i we s udy local/place-
based communi ies. We p opose local communi ies he e as
cul u al en i ies buil on g oups o people who sha e a common
geog aphical locali y (i.e., neighbou hood) and o m a common
social g oup and place-speci ic u ban iden i y in e e yday li e
(see also Delan y, 2003;Manzo and Pe kins, 2006;Ma kusen and
Gadwa, 2010). While communi ies a e based on sha ed in e es s
such as common places, e hnics, poli ical in e es s o a s and
cul u e, o ins ance, communica ion also means in e ac ion and
ac i i y ha assis bonding indi iduals o o he membe s o he
communi y. In his sense especially, cul u e socie ies can be seen as
b idging ies be ween di e en g oups and communi ies (Delan y,
2003).
2.3. Cul u al pa icipa ion os e ing bonding
In discussions on sus ainable de elopmen , a is ic and cul u al
ac i i ies ha e o en been conside ed a kind o pla o m o ac ion
(c . Dessein e al., 2015; cul u e o ) o ool o inc ease awa eness
o he en i onmen c ea ing esonance o g oups ha adi ional
campaigning may no each (Da low, 1996). In u ban cul u al
policy a s is on many occasions ela ed o u ban de elopmen
aiming o de elop nu u e democ acy and pa icipa ion (Ko bek,
2019). Addi ionally, u ban s udies schola s ha e no ed ha
esiden s a e inc easingly aking owne ship o hei en i onmen
h ough di e en o ms o ac i ism such as DIY p ojec s (e.g.,
S e enson, 2021;Ky ön ii a and Wallin, 2022). Va ious o ms
o bo om-up u ban p ojec s eme ging in subu bs can also be
suppo ed by public cul u al policy. In e ms o sus ainabili y,
howe e , cul u e needs o be unde s ood mo e b oadly as common
alues, a i udes and ac i i ies o he communi ies, which aim a
a meaning ul ou come o he communi y, i.e. as co-p oduc ion,
which calls on he communi y o wo k oge he on a sha ed in e es
(S e enson, 2020).
A s and cul u e p o ide oppo uni ies o in e ac ion and
c ea e meaning o li e in places whe e hey a e p oduced and
consumed (Land y e al., 1996). F om he esiden s’ pe spec i es
in neighbou hoods, cul u e is a way o pa icipa e in meaning ul
communal ac i i ies (Luonila and Ruokolainen, 2023). Communal
a o ms such as hea e, cul u al e en s and es i als a e examples
o how making, expe iencing and consuming a s build b idges
and b ing oge he people om di e en backg ounds (see also
G odach, 2009;Lee, 2013). Pa icipa ion also plays a key ole in
he sense o belonging o a communi y (Ma, 2021, p. 77, also Kim
and Kaplan, 2004). A he p ac ical le el, pa icipa ion in cul u al
ac i i ies builds social ies inc easing communica ion be ween
people he e whe e ac ion akes place (C ossick and Kaszynska,
2016;Daykin e al., 2020;S e enson, 2021). Addi ionally, as
Jeanno e (2003, p. 48) sugges s, cul u al pa icipa ion assis s
in uni ing indi iduals o social spaces occupied by o he s and
encou ages indi iduals o app o e ins i u ional ules and sha ed
no ms o beha iou .
Acco ding o he ecen li e a u e he mos impo an ea u e
o communi ies is sense o belonging (see e.g., Delan y, 2003;
Mulligan, 2015). He e we unde s and belonging bo h in a symbolic
sense o belonging and communica ion be ween people (Delan y,
2003, p. 4). Cul u e is a base o he sha ing and meanings
ha o m communi ies (Hanne z, 1992;Jeanno e, 2003) wi h
cul u al adi ions, belie s, alues and undamen al con ic ions
ha cons i u e indi idual and collec i e iden i y wi hin he limi s
o uni e sal human igh s (Kangas and Sokka, 2015, p. 141; see
also Pu nam, 1995). Cul u e is also a way o build communi ies
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 04 on ie sin.o g

Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
FIGURE 1
Summa y o he heo e ical pe spec i e o he s udy.
by p o iding public cul u al o e ings, oppo uni ies o g ass oo
ac i ism and cul u al pa icipa ion (i.e. b idging). These ac i i ies
a e b idges o bond di e en ac o s c ea ing a p o ision o sense
o belonging among people (Pu nam, 2000). Cul u al sus ainabili y
comp ises ac ions and issues ha in luence how communi ies
mani es hei iden i y, p ese e and cul i a e exis ing adi ions
and also de elop belie sys ems and commonly accep ed alues
(Kangas and Sokka, 2015). In his sense, cul u e is in a key posi ion
in de eloping esilien communi ies.
Figu e 1 concep ualises he heo e ical pe spec i e o he
s udy om he communi y esilience and cul u al sus ainabili y
pe spec i es. The Figu e conc e izes he ela ions be ween he
b idging ole o u ban cul u al policy and bonding p emise o
cul u al pa icipa ion wi h he aim o enhance belonging in
u ban con ex .
3. Me hodology
3.1. Con ex
Finland is a ela i ely egali a ian wel a e socie y. I is one o
he so-called No dic wel a e s a es (Sokka and Johannisson, 2022)
wi h small-scale a ia ion in income (OECD, 2020) and educa ional
oppo uni ies a e equal (Heikkilä, 2021). In e ms o popula ion,
Finland is small wi h o e 5.5 million ci izens (S a is ics Finland,
2022), bu occupies a la ge a ea, i s e i o y co e s 338 440 km²
(Na ional Lands Su ey o Finland, 2022). In Finland inequali ies
and social seg ega ion wi hin communi ies a e ela i ely low
(S je nbe g, 2019, p. 547; see also Be nelius and Vaa o aa a,
2016). Howe e , in he 2000s, u ban esiden ial seg ega ion
inc eased signi ican ly, and since hen, many go e nmen al and
local de elopmen p og ammes ha e been ini ia ed o p e en and
educe esiden ial seg ega ion in he la ges ci ies (Be nelius and
Vaa o aa a, 2016). The si ua ion is s ill di e en om ha in
Sweden, o ins ance, whe e he esiden ial seg ega ion o subu bs,
especially conce ning e hnic g oups, has led o pola isa ion and
la ge-scale un es in bigge ci ies (e.g., Dahls ed and Ekholm,
2018).
F om he cul u al policy pe spec i e, cul u al policy s uc u e in
Finland composes a a he s able, o ganised, and ins i u ionalised
sys em o he implemen a ion o public policy (Jakonen and Sokka,
2022). A na ional le el he s uc u e o Finnish cul u al policy
consis s o mul iple go e nmen ins i u ions, quasi-au onomous
non-go e nmen al o ganisa ions and in e es o ganisa ions. The
Minis y o Educa ion and Cul u e (MEC) is esponsible o
he s a u o y a and cul u al policy (see e.g., Kangas, 2001;
Luonila e al., 2022, p. 48; Jakonen and Sokka, 2022). The s a e
alloca es subsidies o municipali ies o p oduce cul u al se ices
wi h he aim o achie ing a decen alisa ion o cul u al policy
implemen a ion a he municipal le el (Kangas, 2001, p. 65–
66).
Wi h ega d o alloca ed public suppo , he emphasis o
unding is ai ly well es ablished. As in mos o he Wes e n
coun ies, in Finland, oo, he majo i y o public unding o
cul u e is channelled alloca ed o a a he small numbe o cul u al
ac o s ope a ing in he so-called highb ow a s (Saukkonen, 2014).
Wi h espec o he democ a isa ion o cul u e, he o ganisa ions
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 05 on ie sin.o g
Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
unded a e commonly hea es, o ches as, ope as, museums and
so o h in di e en a eas and ci ies o he coun y (see e.g.,
Kangas, 2001;Saukkonen, 2014). Thus, he cul u al policies a e
a ge ed a adi ional kinds o a s and cul u e in Finland. In his
espec , as Heikkilä (2021) men ions, he oppo uni y o cul u al
consump ion (i.e., pa icipa ion) is o e ed o be p i ileged o
cul u ally ac i e g oups, e en hough he cul u al consump ion
also happens ou side he ins i u ions (Pu honen e al., 2014). I is
also a gued ha he unding ame challenges he idea o equal
oppo uni y o pa icipa e and consume cul u e (Heikkilä, 2021),
one o he pu poses a which “wel a e s a e’s cul u al policy should
aim” (Kangas, 2001, p. 62).
As Vi olainen (2014) no es, cul u al pa icipa ion has been a
key aspec o cul u al policy since he in oduc ion o mode n
cul u al policies in he 1960s and 1970s in gene al and in Finland
in pa icula (see also e.g., Janco ich and Bianchini, 2013;Heikkilä
and Lindblom, 2022). Mo eo e , as Kangas (2001, p. 62) men ions,
since he 1970s Finnish cul u al policy has ocused on he idea
ha cul u al policy should con ibu e o a p ocess o equalisa ion
among a ious social g oups and a oid he wide disc epancy
o oppo uni ies o he consump ion o cul u e. E en hough
he p omo ion o equali y is a cen al aim in Finland’s cul u al
policy (Kangas and Sokka, 2015, p. 143), in e es ingly, in ecen
s udies Heikkilä and Lindblom (2022) no e ha mo e han wo-
hi ds o all Finns ne e a end he ope as o jazz conce s
ha a e commonly publicly unded a s gen es (c . Van Hek
and K aaykamp, 2013), whe eas almos e e yone goes o he
cinema a leas some imes, a leisu e ac i i y ha is commonly
d i en by a comme cial ope a o . Mo eo e , i mus be no ed
ha in Finland communi y ci izenship has a long and s ong
adi ion in socie y. Va ious associa ions and communi ies a e a key
esou ce and a unc ional pla o m o democ acy and wellbeing
as well as ac i a ing ci izens in Finnish socie y, including cul u e
(e.g., Ruuskanen e al., 2020).
Thus, leisu e and cul u al o e ings, cul u al consump ion as
well as o e all pa icipa ion in cul u e is a mul ile el cons uc ion
ha ela es o he ins i u ional highb ow a s uc u es, low-
h eshold pa icipa ion in he e en s o es i als o g ass oo do-
i -you sel ac i i ies, o ins ance (Pu honen e al., 2014;Heikkilä
and Lindblom, 2022). In his sense, acco ding o cu en ends,
“cul u al pa icipa ion emains a highly s a i ied and pola ised
ield, also in an egali a ian socie y” such as Finland (Heikkilä,
2021, p. 202). As a e lec ion o hese de ini ions, we ake cul u al
ac i i y he e o co e a ious local communal ac i i ies ela ed
o leisu e.
3.2. The ci y o Jy äskylä and he case
neighbou hoods
The ci y o Jy äskylä is loca ed in he middle o Finland. In ou
esea ch pe iod, Jy äskylä was he se en h bigges ci y in Finland
in 2020 wi h 143,420 ci izens (S a is ics Finland, 2022). One o he
key cha ac e is ics o he ci y is highe educa ion and s uden s:
he e a e a esea ch-based uni e si y and wo uni e si ies o applied
sciences wi h ∼23,000 s uden s. The s a egic ision o he ci y is o
be a “g owing and in e na ionally ecognised ci y o educa ion and
expe ise” aiming o make Jy äskylä “ he bes place o li e, wo k and
s udy” (Ci y o Jy äskylä, 2021a).
The main public unded a s ins i u ions, such as he ci y
hea e and o ches a as well as Museum o Cen al Finland, he
A Museum, he A s and C a s Museum and he Al a Aal o
Museum a e loca ed in he ci y cen e o in i s immedia e icini y.
In he Jy äskylä he e a e also a comp ehensi e ne wo k o lib a ies.
The 13 public lib a ies a e loca ed a di e en loca ions as ou
case neighbou hoods.
Rega ding he subu bs, hey a e well es ablished and o m a
signi ican pa o he u ban s uc u e o e e yday li e in all Finnish
ci ies. Subu bs a e esiden ial a eas om a ce ain e a, namely he
1960s o 1970s, ollowing a uni o m plan and loca ed ou side he
ci y cen e in pe iphe al su oundings on u ban inges based on
he model o a o es ci y and he g id layou o so-called compac
es a es, he building s ock consis ing mainly o elemen conc e e
apa men houses (Kemppainen, 2017;S je nbe g, 2019). A he
ime o he cons uc ion, he subu bs wi h hei mode n apa men
blocks exempli ied p og essi e u ban planning and he houses
p o ided he e y la es mode n con eniences o ens o housands
o new u ban ci izens and hei amilies. La e , howe e , he image
o u ban Finnish subu bs changed. Due o he ecession o he
1990s, high unemploymen and po e y eme ged. The 1990s also
wi nessed g ow h in immig an popula ions and he cons uc ion o
social housing. In he 2000s, many subu bs became disad an aged
in socio-economic e ms and unde wen signi ican demog aphic
changes ha led o esiden ial seg ega ion by income o e hnici y
(Hyö yläinen, 2019;S je nbe g, 2019).
Ou s udy ocuses on he subu bs o Huh asuo and he
Kel inmäki-Myllyjä i loca ed in di e en pa s o he ci y o
Jy äskylä, abou 3–8km om he ci y cen e. In 2020, hey we e
home o o e 16 000 inhabi an s (Ci y o Jy äskylä, 2022). Bo h
subu bs ha e good in as uc u e and public se ices. A hei
cen es hey ha e shopping a eas (like he Huh asuo Shopping
Cen e) wi h g oce y s o es, public se ices p o ided by he Ci y
o Jy äskylä such as public heal h clinics and public lib a ies
and some p i a e and hi d-sec o se ices. In addi ion, he e
a e E angelical Lu he an Chu ch p emises, and p ima y and
comp ehensi e schools. The public anspo connexions a e good,
p o iding easy access om he e o he ci y cen e. Bo h subu bs a e
e hnically and socially di e se, ha e high unemploymen igu es,
low le els o educa ion and high le els o amilies headed by a
single mo he li ing in ce ain esiden ial a eas. The e a e also
some majo di e ences: he popula ion o Huh asuo is cu en ly
on he inc ease, and his has d i en conside able in es men in
de eloping he a ea wi h new housing cons uc ions, including
de ached houses, and wi h se e al public u ban de elopmen
planning p ojec s. In Kel inmäki-Myllyjä i, he popula ion is
diminishing (Ci y o Jy äskylä, 2022), and no majo in es men s
ha e eme ged.
3.4. Da a
This s udy d aws on he da a ga he ed du ing he esea ch
p ojec “Fo ms and meanings o cul u e in he 2020′s subu bs: wo
case s udies om Jy äskylä” (Uni e si y o Jy äskylä 2021–2022).
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 06 on ie sin.o g
Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
FIGURE 2
Da a, he uni o analysis and app oach o he s udy.
The p ojec sc u inised cul u al ac i i ies in wo subu bs o he
ci y o Jy äskylä (in Cen al Finland). Du ing he p ojec we used
a mixed-me hods app oach and ga he ed esea ch ma e ials by
doing e hnog aphic ield wo k (in e iews wi h social expe s and
pa icipan obse a ion), conduc ing a su ey in he wo case
neighbou hoods, o ganised pa icipa o y wo kshops o special
in e es g oups and ead cul u al policy documen s wi h he aim
o analyse he p e equisi es o cul u al policy (Figu e 2).
The aim o he da a collec ion was o conside wo aspec s:
he cul u al and expe ienced pe spec i e (inhabi an s) and he
unc ional aspec s (key pe son in e iews). While he su ey
sough he same o e iew o leisu e ac i i ies in he egions,
he pu pose o he wo kshops, in e iews wi h key pe sons and
e hnog aphic obse a ion was o p o ide backg ound in o ma ion
on communi y ac o s and e e yday li e in he esiden ial a eas
and supplemen he in o ma ion collec ed h ough quan i a i e
me hods (in eg a ing o di e en me hods in mixed me hods
esea ch see Mo an-Ellis e al., 2006;Hamme sley, 2008). We
ecei ed a o al o 189 esponses ia he su ey, o which some
esponden s we e cu en esiden s, some had been li ing in he
neighbou hoods ea lie and some we e isi o s in he a eas.
In his s udy we epo he esponses o esiden s cu en ly
li ing in he neighbou hoods (n=164). Vas majo i y o his
g oup we e women (70%). 40% o he esiden s esponding
we e cu en ly wo king, 24% we e pensione s and 18% we e
unemployed. The esponden s we e able o choose se e al di e en
labou ma ke posi ions.
The e hnog aphic da a we use he e consis s o 14 hema ic
in e iews wi h he 22 in o man s (see Table 1). In addi ion,
we ga he ed da a om pa icipa o y wo kshops and conduc ed
obse a ion and kep esea ch dia ies in he case neighbou hoods.
We s udied he o ganising o and pa icipa ion in he ac i i ies,
asking wha kinds o ac i i ies we e impo an and meaning ul o
he esiden s o he subu bs.
Addi ionally, we ha e analysed he cul u al policy documen s
o he Ci y o Jy äskylä o ind ou how policy measu es add ess
he cul u al ac i i ies o he subu bs. The aim o he analysis
was o s udy he ole o ac i i ies o ganised by he inhabi an s
and communi ies o he subu bs and o de e mine he ole
o he ac i i ies by o ganised by public cul u al ins i u ions
such as he Ci y o Jy äskylä. In so doing, we app oached
he cul u al en i onmen bo h om he pe spec i e o publicly
unded o e ings, ac i i ies p oduced by ci il socie y and g ass oo
ac i i ies c ea ed by he inhabi an s, whe eas he con ex (i.e., place)
o he s udy was he wo case neighbou hoods in he ci y o
Jy äskylä, Finland. Simul aneously, we analysed he public unding
decisions conce ning cul u al and ci izen ac i i y g an s made by
he ci y’s councils and also es ablished an o e all iew on he ci y’s
cul u al unding as a whole. Rega ding o his pa icula s udy,
we analysed how he p e equisi es e lec o ou unde s anding o
communi y esilience.
Thus, we op ed o a mixed-me hods app oach as his is o en
e ec i e when explo ing wide and complex social issues and global
challenges ha can be seen as so-called wicked p oblems which
c oss disciplina y bounda ies (see Seppänen-Jä elä e al., 2019).
Sus ainable u ban de elopmen and social sus ainabili y is one such
p oblem (Ala-Man ila e al., 2022). Resul ing om ou esea ch, we
ound connexions be ween cul u al pa icipa ion and he concep
o esilience as well as sus ainabili y ( he ocus o cu en s udy) as
an eme ging inding (Figu e 2).
4. Findings
Nex , we will discuss he indings o he s udy in wo pa s.
Fi s , basing on he s a egic goals and alues as well as unding
and channelled esou ces we analyse he ways (u ban) cul u al
policy suppo s cul u al pa icipa ion in u ban neighbou hoods.
Second, we ocus on he s a egic aims o he Ci y o Jy äskylä
and esiden s’ cul u al pa icipa ion in he neighbou hoods and
discuss om he cul u al and expe ienced pe spec i e (inhabi an s)
and he unc ional aspec s (key pe son in e iews) a which le els
he p e equisi es and pa icipa ion os e communi y esilience (see
also Figu es 1,2).
4.1. U ban cul u al policy and he
p e equisi es o communi y esilience
He e we ocus on how u ban cul u al policy appea s as an
enable o communi y esilience and b ings oge he dispa a e
membe s o he communi y i.e., building b idges be ween di e en
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 07 on ie sin.o g
Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
TABLE 1 In e iewed cul u al sec o agen s o he Huh asuo and Kel inmäki egion 2021–2022.
Agen /Sec o Ta ge g oups Loca ion Sec o
Ci y o Jy äskylä/A and Cul u e companions/ Local associa ions and hei membe s Huh asuo Se ice Cen e (Huh asuon
yh eis oimin apis e)
Public
Ci y o Jy äskylä/Basic Educa ion/The Finnish
model o leisu e ac i i ies
Child en and Adolescen s Huh asuo School (Huh asuon yh enäiskoulu) Public
Ci y o Jy äskylä/You h Se ices You h You h Cen e Pe ula Public
Huh asuo Residen ’s Associa ion (Huh asuon ASA
y)
All esiden s, especially hose who a e
lonely
Huh asuo Village Cen e (Huh asuon
kylä oimis o)
Thi d sec o
Jy äskylä E angelic Lu he an pa ish, Huh asuo
agency
All esiden s, ac i i ies o all ages Kipinä a he Mall o Seppä Semi public
Huh asuo Pensionis s Senio s Huh asuo Village Cen e (Huh asuon
kylä oimis o)
Thi d sec o
Monikko Associa ion Mig an s Se e al loca ions Thi d sec o
The Se lemen o Jy älä Adul esiden s Se e al loca ions Thi d sec o
The A Mas e Associa ion Russian mig an s o all ages Thea e Space Thi d sec o
Kel inmäki and Myllyjä i Residen ’s Associa ion
(Kel imäen ja Myllyjä en asukkaa y)
All esiden s Keidas, Kel inmäki Village Cen e
(Kel inmäen kylä alo)
Thi d sec o
Jy äskylä E angelic Lu he an pa ish, Kel inmäki
agency
All esiden s, ac i i ies o all ages Kel inmäki chu ch Semi public
Ci y o Jy äskylä/Basic Educa ion/The Finnish
model o leisu e ac i i ies
Child en and Adolescen s Kel inmäki School (Kel inmäen koulu) Public
ac o s (Pu nam, 2000). Fi s , we discuss he s a egic will o
he ci y hen analyse he esou ces enabling ac i i ies in he
case neighbou hoods.
4.1.1. S a egic will
The s a egic ision o he Ci y o Jy äskylä (2021a)
is o be a “g owing and in e na ionally ecognised ci y o
educa ion and expe ise” aiming o make Jy äskylä “ he bes
place o li e, wo k and s udy”. The ci y has de ined ou
s a egic goals, namely (1) happy, heal hy and pa icipa o y
ci izens, (2) esh, g ow h-o ien ed business policy, (3) wise
use o esou ces and (4) o be he capi al o spo and
physical ac i i y in Finland ollowing he ou s a egic alues
o esponsibili y, us , c ea i i y and openness o achie e
hese a ge s.
In he measu es o achie e he goals o ha ing “happy, heal hy
and pa icipa o y ci izens”, he s a egy unde lines oppo uni ies
o child en and young people o enjoy heal hy g ow h and
lea n success ully, oppo uni ies o in luence decision-making, he
p omo ion o equali y, he a ailabili y and accessibili y o se ices,
a s ong sense o communi y wi h he aim o educing loneliness by
mul i ace ed leisu e ac i i ies, a s and cul u e (Ci y o Jy äskylä,
2021a; see also Luonila and Ruokolainen, 2023).
O he s a egic documen s suppo he ision and a ge s o
he ci y s a egy. The ocus o hese documen s is on he wellbeing
and inclusion o esiden s wi h suppo ing pa icipa ion and on
c ea ing ways o in luence local decision-making and on he o he
hand, o make he policies and cul u e o he ci y mo e anspa en
and inclusi e. Rega ding child en and adolescen s, he ocus o he
Cul u al Plan o he ci y, o ins ance, is on ac i e sel -mo i a ed
cul u al ac i i ies by making cul u e a pa o e e yday li e by
“hands-on” means (Ci y o Jy äskylä, 2021b).
In hei c i ical eading o he s a egic ex s o he ci y o
Jy äskylä, Luonila and Ruokolainen (2023) no e ha a s a egy
le el he ci y o Jy äskylä a ge s cul u al policy measu es in
he subu bs in ela ion o ci izens’ ac i i ies in di e en ways.
Acco ding o he au ho s, he documen s discuss communi y,
pa icipa ion, inclusion and olun a y ac i i ies and link hese
ac i i ies o he ope a ions in communi y cen es (‘kylä oimis o ’)
and men ion hem as op ional places o p oduce e en s and as
con ex s o implemen a ious de elopmen p ojec s in he subu bs
(Ci y o Jy äskylä, 2021c;Luonila and Ruokolainen, 2023). F om
he communi y esilience poin o iew in he ex s he Wellbeing
o Huh asuo p ojec is ci ed as an example aiming o c ea e new
oppo uni ies and inclusi e p ocedu es o esiden s in subu bs
o enhance sel -mo i a ed ac i i ies o suppo ci izens’ wellbeing
and o os e collabo a ion be ween di e en subu ban ac o s.
Concomi an ly, om he p e equisi e pe spec i e, he s a egy ex s
men ion he lib a ies as places o p omo e equali y (e.g., Ci y o
Jy äskylä, 2021d). Beside he ac i i ies p oduced by communi y
cen es, he s a egic aim o he ci y is o use lib a ies as a pla o m
o mo i a e olun ee s o come up wi h ideas and co-ope a e in
s aging e en s and a a ie y o o he ac i i ies, o ins ance.
In he Cul u al Plan, he Ci y o Jy äskylä makes an ac ual
a emp o connec cul u al ac i i ies o he s a egic goals o
pa icipa ion and inclusion. The Cul u al Plan ou lines an idea
o enable g ass oo s ac i i ies in he subu bs aiming o expand
he cul u al ac i i ies beyond he exis ing cul u al ins i u ions and
beyond he ci y cen e. The s a egic pu pose is o ein o ce cul u al
ac i i ies in he neighbou hoods and nea b ing oge he esiden s
o neighbou hoods by p oducing pop-up ac i i ies and digi al
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 08 on ie sin.o g
Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
e e yday li es (Eb ey, 2016). We selec ed wo subu bs, namely
Huh asuo and Kel inmäki in Jy äskylä, Finland as he con ex o
ou analysis and asked: How u ban cul u al policy and cul u al
pa icipa ion build communi y esilience a communi y le el? We
analysed he ways how (u ban) cul u al policy suppo s cul u al
pa icipa ion in u ban neighbou hoods and, i so, how. We ocused
on he s a egic aims o he Ci y o Jy äskylä and esiden s’ cul u al
pa icipa ion in he neighbou hoods and discussed a which le els
he p e equisi es and pa icipa ion os e communi y esilience.
Acco ding o ou indings cul u e is gi en an impo an ole
in cap u ing he social and economic s a egic aims in he ci y o
Jy äskylä. F om a s a egic pe spec i e, he ci y aims o de elop
a ci y o “happy, heal hy and pa icipa o y ci izens” (Ci y o
Jy äskylä, 2021a). Viewing his om ou heo e ical amewo k, he
ci y’s solu ion is o use cul u al o e ings and cul u al pa icipa ion
as a b idge o enhance i s esiden s’ wellbeing by p o iding
oppo uni ies o pa icipa ion and hobbies o all, bu also by
c ea ing ways o in luence local decision-making (Ci y o Jy äskylä,
2021c). In he s a egies, sel -mo i a ed cul u al ac i i ies a e
also appa en , while one o he key p emises is o suppo sel -
mo i a ed cul u al ac i i ies by enabling g ass oo s ac i i ies in
he subu bs o expand he cul u al ac i i ies beyond he exis ing
cul u al ins i u ions, and beyond he ci y cen e and make cul u e
a pa o e e yday li e by “hands-on” means (see also Luonila
and Ruokolainen, 2023). F om he b idging pe spec i e in bo h
case neighbou hoods he local lib a y was deemed impo an
while o he publicly unded cul u al pu sui s mos ly ake place
elsewhe e in he ci y. In he case neighbou hoods he e we e many
associa ions un by ci il socie y ha gene a e oppo uni ies o
(cul u al) pa icipa ion and spo s as a hobby we e emphasised.
Howe e , he esou ces alloca ed o hese ac o s a e mino and he
acili ies uns able.
Rega ding he case neighbou hoods as communi ies, in spi e
o a ious socio-economic challenges esiden s epo edly spend a
lo o ime in hei own a eas and seem happy he e. Communi y
esilience as a sense o belonging like neighbou hood- ela ed
iden i y and also as a sense o owne ship o place seems s ong in
a ious ways (see Figu e 7). Ou esul s show ha local mee ing
places like na u al enues and buildings as well as o e ed se ices
a e impo an o ci izens and hese elemen s o e e yday li e
need o be p ese ed and hei s abili y ensu ed. Neighbou hood
associa ions and o he NGOs p oduced ac i i ies in he case
neighbou hoods wi h communi y-based low- h eshold ac i i ies,
such as cul u al and leisu e ac i i ies and a ious e en s ha c ea e
oppo uni ies o communica ion. In his sense, he ole o illage
halls, esiden s’ associa ions and o he ac o s om he hi d and
ou h sec o s as key suppo e s o communi y and communi y
esilience is emphasised.
Howe e , as Junnilainen (2019) has ound, he mu ual social
ies o people li ing in he u ban neighbou hoods a e o en
enuous and empo a y. They a e, o example, ela ed o
a ce ain li e si ua ion, bu a e s ill signi ican in ha hey
p o ide pee suppo and e e yday secu i y (c . Van Ae scho
e al., 2016). Ou esul s show ha in ou case neighbou hoods
he e a e di e en mani es a ions o communi y and communi y
spi i in he neighbou hoods s udied, al hough expe iencing
communi y is highly subjec i e. The ole o de elopmen p ojec s
and esiden s’ associa ions in building communi y spi i and
connec ing indi iduals and g oups is signi ican . The main ask
in p ojec s and in communi y cen es ac i i ies s eng hening he
communi y is o p e en exclusion, loneliness and social p oblems.
In p ojec ac i i ies and esiden s’ associa ions, he exclusion-
p e en ing and empowe ing e ec o communal ac i i ies is
especially emphasised. S ill, ou esul s suppo Junnilainen’s
obse a ions. Fo example, encoun e s in illage halls o common
e en s a e no necessa ily p o ound human ela ionships, bu
ne e heless signi ican e e yday encoun e s a o ding elie
om loneliness. Thus, i can be said ha key ac o s and
p e equisi es o communi y esilience can be ound in he
subu ban neighbou hoods, such as belonging and bonding. Ye
when compa ed o communi y de elopmen in di e en a eas such
as u al egions, o ins ance, he pic u e is a he di e en . In u al
illage associa ions he u u e o ien a ion h ough illage planning
and de eloping local se ices is a ele an pa o communi y
ac ion, o ins ance (Ma hies e al., 2011).
In ou case neighbou hoods, he e a e mul iple inpu s o social
cohesion o sus ainable socie ies and many imes go e nmen
policies ep esen only one se o hese inpu s (Jeanno e, 2003, p.
47). Ou indings a e in line wi h Duxbu y e al. (2017), ha cul u e
should be ecognised as an essen ial binding elemen p o iding
he alues emphasising sus ainable (o unsus ainable) ac i i ies.
Basing on ou esul s we a e able o elabo a e his and s a e ha
cul u al ac i i ies a e a way o enhance communi y esilience in
neighbou hoods as well: b idging u ban cul u al policy can enhance
public cul u al o e ings, oppo uni ies o g ass oo s ac i ism
and cul u al pa icipa ion, whe eas (cul u al) pa icipa ion os e s
communica ion (i.e. bonding) in he e e yday li e con ex (see
also Jeanno e and Duxbu y, 2015). These ac o s suppo social
cohesion in communi ies among esiden s and o he ac o s in
local communi ies gene a ing a sense o communi y and belonging,
and especially o owne ship o place. These a e key elemen s o
esilien communi y whe e sha ed communi y- ela ed in e es s
b ing esiden s oge he .
Conce ning u ban policy making, we p opose ha esilien
communi y should be unde s ood as a goal ha assis s decision-
make s in he ci ies and communi ies o enhance (cul u al)
sus ainabili y (Th osby, 1995; c . Soini and Dessein, 2016).
P ac ically, when he socie al aim is o gene a e socially and
cul u ally sus ainable neighbou hoods, pa icipa ion in e e yday
(cul u al) ac i i ies migh be seen as a aluable way o ga he
in o ma ion abou communi y alues, p ac ises and p io i ies
using a wide a ie y o communi y engagemen echniques. In
he same ein, cul u al pa icipa ion as an ac i i y gene a es
wellbeing and meaning in li e, and as a ehicle o os e ac i e
agency in u ban neighbou hoods c ea es a sense o owne ship (i.e.,
belonging). Belonging and he sense o owne ship o place a e
ele an o communi ies’ u u e o ien a ion as well and acco ding
o ou conside a ions, ela ed also o he sus ainabili y o u ban
communi ies and cul u al policies o he ci ies. In his sense, he
nego ia ion and communica ion be ween communi y ac o s and
public o icials o he ci ies dese es a lo o a en ion while he
implemen a ion o u ban cul u al policy is on ocus.
F om u ban cul u al policy pe spec i e, he low- h eshold
pa icipa ion and oppo uni ies o g ass oo s cul u al ac i i y
seem an unde exploi ed esou ce in he ci ies, especially when
he concep o sus ainabili y is unde conside a ion. Rega ding
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 15 on ie sin.o g

Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
o ou case, he mul i ace ed ole o cul u e is ecognised a he
s a egic le el in he ci y o Jy äskylä and he ci y wishes o
cul i a e his, ye , acco ding o ou indings i is no isible in
p ac ise in ou case con ex . Many ques ions a ise. A policy le el
we need o de e mine how o c ea e he ‘communi y spi i ’ and
suppo g ass oo ac i i ies. I would also be impo an o e lec on
how o conduc cul u al policy om he p e equisi es pe spec i e.
Addi ional key ques ions conce n pa icipa ion and inclusion: how
o in ol e new esiden s in ac i i ies, i.e., how o in ol e passi e
esiden s and mo i a e hose who a e al eady ac i e? F om he
cul u al sus ainabili y and communi y esilience poin o iew,
u he esea ch should analyse he s ee ing o he ans o ma ion
o sus ainabili y in he alues, li es yles and a i udes o indi iduals
in di e en communi y con ex s. I would also be impo an o ind
new ways o explo ing hese ques ions and o de elop he indica o s
and uni s o analysis o measu e he di ec and indi ec impac s o
policies. Howe e , we a gue ha holis ic analysis o esiden s, ac o s
and ins i u ions iewpoin s helps us o unde s and he p ac ises
and p ocesses ela ed o communi y esilience. All his dese es
mul idisciplina y esea ch and join e lec ion. F om he basis o
ou expe ience, we ecommend applying a mul ime hod app oach
and da a iangula ion ha helped us o make sense o how u ban
cul u al policy and cul u al pa icipa ion can suppo communi y
esilience a communi y le el.
Da a a ailabili y s a emen
The aw da a suppo ing he conclusions o his a icle will be
made a ailable by he au ho s, wi hou undue ese a ion.
E hics s a emen
The s udies in ol ing human pa icipan s we e e iewed and
app o ed by Uni e si y o Jy äskylä. The pa ien s/pa icipan s
p o ided hei w i en in o med consen o pa icipa e in
his s udy.
Au ho con ibu ions
All au ho s con ibu ed o he a icle and app o ed he
submi ed e sion.
Funding
The esea ch p ojec o he a icle ha e unded by he Lähiö
und (Minis y o En i onmen ) and “A “ oom” o hei own -
aining cul u al wo ke s o acili a ing u al you h cul u e (R
YOUCULT)” p ojec . KA220-ADU-2021-015; 2021-DK01-KA220-
ADU-000033681.
Conflic o in e es
The au ho s decla e ha he esea ch was conduc ed
in he absence o any comme cial o inancial ela ionships
ha could be cons ued as a po en ial con lic
o in e es .
Publishe ’s no e
All claims exp essed in his a icle a e solely hose
o he au ho s and do no necessa ily ep esen hose o
hei a ilia ed o ganiza ions, o hose o he publishe ,
he edi o s and he e iewe s. Any p oduc ha may be
e alua ed in his a icle, o claim ha may be made by
i s manu ac u e , is no gua an eed o endo sed by he
publishe .
Re e ences
Ala-Man ila, S., Hi ilammi, T., Jokela, S., Laine, M., and Weck o h,
M. (2022). Kaupunkien ooli kes ä yysmu oksessa: plane aa isen
kaupungis umisen ja kaupunkien aineen aihdunnan näkökulma (The
ole o ci ies in sus ainabili y ans o ma ion: Pe spec i es o plane a y
u banisa ion and u ban me abolism). Te a. 134, 225–239. doi: 10.30677/ e a.
116456
Alessand ia, F. (2016). Inclusi e ci y, s a egies, expe iences and guidelines.
P ocedia - Social Beha io al Sci. 223, 6–10. doi: 10.1016/j.sbsp o.2016.
05.274
Bell, D., and O ozco, L. (2021). Neighbou hood a s spaces in place: cul u al
in as uc u e and pa icipa ion on he ou ski s o he c ea i e ci y. In . J. Cul u al
Policy. 27, 87–10. doi: 10.1080/10286632.2019.1709059
Be nelius, V., and Vaa o aa a, M. (2016). Choice and seg ega ion in he ‘mos
egali a ian’ schools: cumula i e decline in u ban schools and subu bs o Helsinki,
Finland. U ban S ud. 53, 3155–3171. doi: 10.1177/0042098015621441
B and, F. S., and Jax, K. (2007). Focusing he meaning(s) o esilience:
esilience as a desc ip i e concep and a bounda y objec . Ecol. Soc. 12, 23.
doi: 10.5751/ES-02029-120123
Callaghan, E. G., and Col on, J. (2008). Building sus ainable and esilien
communi ies: A balancing o communi y capi al. En i on. De . 10, 931–942.
doi: 10.1007/s10668-007-9093-4
Ci y o Jy äskylä (2021a). Jy äskylä Ci y S a egy 2017-2021. A ailable online a :
h ps://www.jy askyla. i/en/jy askyla-in o ma ion/jy askyla-ci y-s a egy (accessed 4
Augus , 2021).
Ci y o Jy äskylä (2021b). Kul uu isuunni elma [Cul u al Plan]. A ailable
online a : h ps://be a.jy askyla. i/si es/de aul / iles/a oms/ iles/jy askylan_
kul uu isuunni elma_29112017.pd (accessed 10 Sep embe , 2021).
Ci y o Jy äskylä (2021c). Jy äskylän kaupungin osallisuusohjelma [Inclusion
p og am o he ci y o Jy äskylä]. A ailable online a : h ps://www.jy askyla. i/si es/
de aul / iles/a oms/ iles/78306_jy askylan_osallisuusohjelma_hy aksy y_20150928.
pd (accessed 10 Sep embe , 2021).
Ci y o Jy äskylä (2021d). Jy äskylän kaupungin yhden e aisuussuunni elma
[Equali y Plan o he ci y o Jy äskylä]. A ailable online a :
h ps://www.jy askyla. i/si es/de aul / iles/a oms/ iles/89085_jy askyla_
yhden e aisuussuunni elma_2017.pd (accessed 10 Sep embe 2021).
Ci y o Jy äskylä (2022). Ajankoh ais a ie oa Jy äskyläs ä [S a is ics o Jy äskylä].
h ps://www.jy askyla. i/jy askyla/ ilas o /aluekoh ais a- ie oa-jy askylas a (accessed
4 Ap il 2022).
C ossick, G., and Kaszynska, P. (2016). “Unde s anding he Value o A s and
Cul u e,” in The AHRC Cul u al Value P ojec . A s and Humani ies Resea ch Council.
A ailable online a : h ps://ah c.uk i.o g/ esea ch/ unded hemesandp o%20g ammes/
cul u al aluep ojec / (accessed 11 Ap il 2022).
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 16 on ie sin.o g
Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
Dahls ed , M., and Ekholm, D. (2018). “Social exclusion and mul ie hnic subu bs
in Sweden,” in The Rou ledge Companion o he Subu bs, Hanlon, B., and Vicino, T. J.
(London: Rou ledge), 1–10. doi: 10.4324/9781315266442-14
Da low, A. (1996). Cul u al policy and u ban sus ainabili y: making a missing link?
Planning P ac . Res. 11, 291–302. doi: 10.1080/02697459616861
Daykin, N., Mans ield, L., Meads, C., G ay, K., Golding, A., Tomlinson,
A., e al. (2020). The ole o social capi al in pa icipa o y a s o wellbeing:
indings om a quali a i e sys ema ic e iew. A s Heal h. 13, 134–157.
doi: 10.1080/17533015.2020.1802605
de G aa ,. L., an Huls , M., and Michels, A. (2015). Enhancing Pa icipa ion
in Disad an aged U ban Neighbou hoods. Local Go e n. S ud. 41, 44–62.
doi: 10.1080/03003930.2014.908771
Delan y, G. (2003). Communi y. London: Rou ledge.
Delan y, G. (2010). Communi y (2nd edi ion.). London: Rou ledge.
doi: 10.4324/9780203877050
Dessein, J., Soini, K., Fai clough, G., and Ho lings, L. (2015). “Cul u e in, o and as
Sus ainable De elopmen ,” in Conclusions om he COST Ac ion IS1007 In es iga ing
Cul u al Sus ainabili y. Jy äskylä: Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Finland.
Duxbu y, N., Cullen, C., and Pascual,. J. (2012). “Ci ies, cul u e and sus ainable
de elopmen ,” in Cul u al Policy and Go e nance in a New Me opoli an
Age, Anheie , H. K., Isa , Y. R., and Hoelsche , M. London: Sage, 73–86.
doi: 10.4135/9781446254523.n6
Duxbu y, N., Hosag aha , J., and Pascual, J. (2016). Why mus cul u e be a he
hea o sus ainable u ban de elopmen ? Uni ed Ci ies and Local Go e nmen s. A ailable
online a : h ps://www.agenda21cul u e.ne /si es/de aul / iles/cul u e_sd_ci ies_web_
sp ead.pd (accessed June 30, 2023).
Duxbu y, N., and Jeanno e, M. S. (2010). “Cul u e, sus ainabili y, and
communi ies: explo ing he my h,” in O icina do CES n.◦353. Coimb a: Cen o de
Es udos Sociais.
Duxbu y, N., Kangas, A., and De Beukelae , C. (2017) Cul u al policies o
sus ainable de elopmen : ou s a egic pa hs. In . J. Cul u al Policy 23, 214–230.
doi: 10.1080/10286632.2017.1280789
Eb ey, J. (2016). The mundane and insigni ican , he o dina y and he
ex ao dina y: unde s anding e e yday pa icipa ion and heo ies o e e yday li e.
Cul u al T ends. 25, 158–168. doi: 10.1080/09548963.2016.1204044
Eu opean Pa liamen (2020). Social Sus ainabili y. Concep s and Benchma ks. Policy
Depa men o Economic, Scien i ic and Quali y o Li e Policies Di ec o a e-Gene al o
In e nal Policies. A ailable online a : h ps://www.eu opa l.eu opa.eu/RegDa a/e udes/
STUD/2020/648782/IPOL_STU(2020)648782_EN.pd (accessed 27 Ap il, 2023).
F eshwa e , D. (2015). Vulne abili y and esilience: wo dimensions o u ali y.
Sociologia Ru alis. 55, 497–515. doi: 10.1111/so u.12090
G odach, C. (2009). A spaces, public space, and he link o communi y
de elopmen . Communi y De . J. 45, 474–493. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsp018
G odach, C. (2017). U ban cul u al policy and c ea i e ci y making. Ci ies. 68,
82–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ci ies.2017.05.015
G odach, C., and and, A., Loukai ou-Side is (2007). Cul u al de elopmen s a egies
and u ban e i aliza ion: a su ey o U.S. Ci ies. In . J. Cul u al Policy. 13, 349–370.
doi: 10.1080/10286630701683235
Hamme sley, M. (2008). “T oubles wi h iangula ion,” in Ad ances
in Mixed-Me hods Resea ch, Be gman, M. (ed). London: Sage, 22–36.
doi: 10.4135/9780857024329.d4
Hanne z, U. (1992). Cul u al Complexi y: S udies in he Social O ganiza ion o
Meaning. New Yo k: Columbia Un e si y P ess.
Heikkilä, R. (2021). The slippe y slope o cul u al non-pa icipa ion: O ien a ions
o pa icipa ion among he po en ially passi e. Eu . J. Cul u al S ud. 24, 202–219.
doi: 10.1177/1367549420902802
Heikkilä, R., and Lindblom, T. (2022). O e laps and accumula ions: he ana omy o
cul u al non-pa icipa ion in Finland, 2007 o 2018. J. Consume Cul u e. 23, 122–145.
doi: 10.1177/14695405211062052
Hi i-Ijäs, M., Kane a, A., and Ruusu i a, M. (2020). “Ci y De elopmen and
Cul u al Policy. Resul s om EspooCul Resea ch,” in Cupo e web publica ions 59.
Uusimaa: Cen e o Cul u al Policy Resea ch Cupo e.
Hyö yläinen, M. (2019). Di ided by policy: U ban inequali y in Finland. PhD Diss.
Helsinki: Uni e si y o Helsinki. A ailable online a : h ps://helda.helsinki. i/bi s eam/
handle/10138/299277/Di idedb.pd ?sequence=1 (accessed June 30, 2023).
Jakonen, O., and Sokka, S. (2022). Finnish cul u al policy as public unding:
Regime iew ac oss policy domains. No disk kul u poli isk idssk i . 25, 293–313.
doi: 10.18261/nk .25.3.9
Janco ich, L., and Bianchini, F. (2013). P oblema ising
pa icipa ion. Cul u al T ends. 22, 63–66. doi: 10.1080/09548963.2013.
783158
Janco ich, L., and S e enson, D. (2023). Failu es in Cul u al Pa icipa ion. London:
Palg a e Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-16116-2
Jeanno e, M. S. (2003). Singing alone? The con ibu ion o cul u al capi al
o social cohesion and sus ainable communi ies. In . J. Cul u al Policy. 9, 35–49.
doi: 10.1080/1028663032000089507
Jeanno e, M. S., and Duxbu y, N. (2015). Ad ancing knowledge h ough g ass oo s
expe imen s: connec ing cul u e and sus ainabili y. J. A s Manage. Law Soc. 45, 84–99.
doi: 10.1080/10632921.2015.1039739
Junnilainen, L. (2019). “Lähiökylä,” in Tu kimus yh eisöllisyydes ä ja
e ia oisuudes a. Tampe e: Vas apaino.
Kangas, A. (2001). Cul u al policy in Finland. J. A s Manage. Law, Soc. 31, 57–78.
doi: 10.1080/10632920109599579
Kangas, A., and Sokka, S. (2015). “Cul u al access and ac i a ion: Ci ic pa icipa ion
in local sus ainable communi ies,” in Cul u e and Sus ainabili y in Eu opean
Ci ies: Imagining Eu opolis, H is o a, S., Šeši´
c, M. D., and Duxbu y, N. London:
Rou ledge, 141–153.
Kemppainen, T. T. (2017). Diso de and Insecu i y in a Residen ial Con ex : A
S udy Focusing on Finnish Subu ban Housing Es a es buil in he 1960s and 1970s.
Execu i e O ice, U ban Resea ch and S a is ics. Helsinki: Ci y o Helsinki. A ailable
online a : h ps://helda.helsinki. i/handle/10138/185903 (accessed June 30, 2023).
Kes ä ä kaupunki (2023). A ailable online a : h ps://kes a akaupunki. i/e usi u
(accessed 16 Ma ch 2023).
Kim, J., and Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological ac o s in sense o
communi y: new u banis ken lands and nea by o cha d illage. En i on. Beha . 36,
313–340. doi: 10.1177/0013916503260236
Kong, L. (2009). Making sus ainable c ea i e/cul u al space in Shanghai and
Singapo e. Geog aphical Re . 99, 1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1931-0846.2009. b00415.x
Ko bek, H. B. (2019). Con adic ions in pa icipa o y public a : placemaking
as an ins umen o u ban cul u al policy. J. A s Manage. Law, Soc. 49, 30–44.
doi: 10.1080/10632921.2018.1473310
Kumpulainen, K. (2018). ”Kylä ule aisuuden paikallisyh eisöinä,” in Maaseudun
Uusi Aika 2–3/2018. Kaisu: Maaseu upoli iikan an ologian juhlanume o.
Kumpulainen, K., Hanna-Ma i Husu, H.-M., and Nousiainen, M. (2022). Poli ical
communi y esilience in declining u al a eas in Finland. Communi y De . J. 57,
449–468. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsab012
Kun alii o (2021). Kes ä ä Kehi ys. A ailable online a : h ps://www.kun alii o. i/
kehi aminen-ja-digi alisaa io/kes a a-kehi ys (accessed June 30, 2023).
Ky ön ii a, M., and Wallin, A. (2022). Building a DIY ska epa k and doing poli ics
hands-on. Ci y. 26, 646–663. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2022.2079879
Land y, C., G eene, L., Ma a asso, F., and Bianchini, F. (1996). The A o
Regene a ion. U ban Renewal Th ough Cul u al Ac i i y. Comedia. A ailable online
a : h ps://illumina .com.au/wp-con en /uploads/2012/08/indonesia-cha lesland y-
a o egene a ion.pd
Lee, D. (2013). How he A s Gene a e Social Capi al o Fos e In e g oup Social
Cohesion. J. A s Manage Law Soc. 43, 4–17. doi: 10.1080/10632921.2012.761167
Lekakis, N., and Liddle, J. (2022). Ci y poli ics unde aus e i y in G eece:
Place-based leade ship o a esilien Thessaloniki, 2011-2021. Ci ies. 131, 103984.
doi: 10.1016/j.ci ies.2022.103984
Lewicka, M. (2014). “In sea ch o oo s: memo y as enable o place a achmen ,”
in Place A achmen : Ad ances in Theo y, Me hods and Applica ions, Manzo, L. C., and
De ine-W igh , P. (eds). New Yo k: Rou ledge, 49–60.
Lilius, J. (2016). “Mi ä kul uu i uo aa paikallises i?,” in Kul uu in paikka?
Kul uu i asuinalueiden kehi ämisessä. Tapaus Suomen Kansallis ea e i Kon ulassa,
Ilmonen, M., and Lilius, J. (eds). Helsinki: Aal o-yliopis on julkaisusa ja,
33–82.
Luonila, M., Renko, V., Jakonen, K. S., and Kane a, A. (2022). ”The e ec s o
he COVID-19 pan-demic on he ield o Finnish cul u al indus ies: Re ealing and
challenging policy s uc u es,” in Cul u al Indus ies and he COVID-19 Pandemic.
A Eu opean ocus, Sal ado , E., Na a e e, T., and S aka , A. London: Rou ledge
Resea ch in he C ea i e and Cul u al Indus ies se ies, 46–64. doi: 10.4324/978100312
8274-3
Luonila, M., and Ruokolainen, O. (2023). “Happy, heal hy and pa icipa o y
ci izens”: Subu ban cul u al policy in he Finnish ci y o Jy äskylä. In . J. Cul u al
Policy. doi: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2160714
Ma, G. (2021). Communi y a achmen : pe cep ions o con ex ma e . Communi y
De . 52, 77– 94. doi: 10.1080/15575330.2020.1836009
Mäenpää, P., and Faehnle, M. (2021). 4. sek o i: Kuinka kaupunkiak i ismi haas aa
hallinnon, muu aa ma kkina ja laajen aa demok a iaa. Tampe e, Suomi: Vas apaino.
Magis, K. (2010). Communi y esilience: an indica o o social sus ainabili y. Soc.
Na u al Resou . 23, 401–416. doi: 10.1080/08941920903305674
Mangse , P. (2020). The end o cul u al policy? In . J. Cul u al Policy. 26, 398–411.
doi: 10.1080/10286632.2018.1500560
Manzo, L. C., and Pe kins, D. D. (2006). Finding common g ound: he impo ance
o place a achmen o communi y pa icipa ion and planning. J. Planning Li e a . 20,
335–350. doi: 10.1177/0885412205286160
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 17 on ie sin.o g
Luonila e al. 10.3389/ pos.2023.1213240
Ma kusen, A., and Gadwa, A. (2010). A s and cul u e in u ban o egional
planning: a e iew and esea ch agenda. J. Planning Educ. Res. 29, 379–391.
doi: 10.1177/0739456X09354380
Mason, M. A., and Tu ne , R. (2020). Cul u al sus ainabili y: a amewo k
o ela ionships, unde s anding, and ac ion. J. Am. Folklo e. 133, 81–99.
doi: 10.5406/jame olk.133.527.0081
Ma a asso, F., (1998). Use o O namen ? The Social Impac o Pa icipa ion in he
A s. New Zealand: Comedia.
Ma hies, A.-L., Ka ilakoski, M., and Ran amäki, N. (2011). Ci izens’ pa icipa ion
and communi y o ien a ion – indica o s o social sus ainabili y o u al wel a e
se ices. No dic Social Wo k Res. 1, 125–139. doi: 10.1080/2156857X.2011.613575
Meadows, D., Meadows, D. L., Rande s, J., and Beh ens, W. W. (1972). “The Limi s
o G ow h,” in The Repo o The Club o Rome’s P ojec on he P edicamen o Mankind.
New Yo k: Uni e se Books.
Me ce , C. (2002). Towa ds Cul u al Ci izenship: Tools o Cul u al Policy
and De elopmen . Söde älje: The Bank o Sweden Te cen ena y Founda ion.
doi: 10.2139/ss n.2153304
Miles, A., and Eb ey, J. (2017). The illage in he ci y: pa icipa ion
and cul u al alue on he u ban pe iphe y. Cul u al T ends. 26, 58–69.
doi: 10.1080/09548963.2017.1274360
Miles, A., and Gibson, L. (2016). E e yday pa icipa ion and cul u al alue. Cul u al
T ends. 25, 151–157. doi: 10.1080/09548963.2016.1204043
Mo an-Ellis, J., Alexande , V., C onin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., e al.
(2006). T iangula ion and in eg a ion: p ocesses, claims and implica ions. Quali a i e
Res. 6, 45–59. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058870
Mulligan, M. (2015). On ambi alence and hope in he es less sea ch o
communi y: how o wo k wi h he idea o communi y in he global age. Sociology
(Ox o d). 49, 340–355. doi: 10.1177/0038038514534008
Mulligan, M., S eele, W., Ricka ds, L., and Fün geld, H. (2016). Keywo ds in
planning: wha do we mean by ’communi y esilience’? In . Planning S ud. 21, 348–361.
doi: 10.1080/13563475.2016.1155974
Na ional Lands Su ey o Finland (2022). Suomi-neidon pin a-ala hei elee.
A ailable online a : h ps://www.maanmi auslai os. i/ ie oa-maanmi auslai okses a/
o ganisaa io/lehde -ja-julkaisu /posi io/suomi-neidon-pin a-ala-hei elee (accessed 4
Ap il 2022).
No is, F. H., S e ens, S. P., P e e baum, B., Wyche, K. F., and P e e baum,
R. L. (2008). Communi y esilience as a me apho , heo y, se o capaci ies,
and s a egy o disas e eadiness. Am. J. Communi y Psychol. 41, 127–150.
doi: 10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6
OECD. (2020). Economic Su eys Finland. A ailable online a : h p://www.oecd.o g/
economy/ inland-economic-snapsho /
P es on, S. D., and Gelman, S. A. (2020). This land is my land: Psychological
owne ship inc eases willingness o p o ec he na u al wo ld mo e han legal
owne ship. J. En i onm. Psychol. 70, 101443. doi: 10.1016/j.jen p.2020.101443
Pu honen, S., G onow, J., Heikkil,ä, R., Kahma, N., Rahkonen, K., and Toikka, A.
(2014). Suomalainen Maku. U ech : Gaudeamus.
Pu nam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: Ame ica’s declining social capi al. J. Democ .
6, 65–78. doi: 10.1353/jod.1995.0002
Pu nam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: he Collapse and Re i al o Ame ican
Communi y. New Yo k: Simon and Schus e . doi: 10.1145/358916.361990
Pu nam, R. D., and Goss, K. A. (2002). “In oduc ion,” in Democ acies
in Flux, Pu nam, R. D. (ed). New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 3–19.
doi: 10.1093/0195150899.003.0001
Quinn, B., Smi h, A., and Osbo n, G. (2022). “Fes i al Ci y Fu u es: Re lec ions and
Conclusions,” in Fes i als and he Ci y: The Con es ed Geog aphies o U ban E en s,
Smi h, A., Osbo n, G., and Quinn, B. (eds). London: Uni e si y o Wes mins e P ess.
doi: 10.16997/book64.o
Rishbe h, C., and Powell, M. (2013). Place a achmen and memo y: landscapes
o belonging as expe ienced pos -mig a ion. Landscape Res. 38, 160–178.
doi: 10.1080/01426397.2011.642344
Ruokolainen, O., Sokka, S., Ku lin, A., and Tohmo, T. (2019). “Taide-
ja kul uu ilai okse osana Jy äskylän kehi ys ä ja hy in oin ia,” in Cupo en
e kkojulkaisuja 56. Helsinki: Kul uu ipoli iikan u kimuskeskus Cupo e.
Ruuskanen, P., Jousilah i, J., Faehnle, M., Kuusikko, K., Kui inen, O., Vi anen,
J., e al. (2020). ”Kansalaisyh eiskunnan ila ja ule aisuus 2020-lu un Suomessa [The
S a e o Finnish Ci il Socie y in 2020s],” in Publica ions o he Go e nmen ’s analysis,
assessmen and esea ch ac i i ies 2020:47. Finnish: P ime Minis e ’s O ice.
Saukkonen, P. (2014). Vankka linnake, jous a a sopeu uja ai seiso a esi?
Suomalaisen kul uu ipoli iikan iimeaikainen kehi ys. Helsinki: Cupo en
Ve kkojulkaisuja, 23. A ailable online a : h ps://www.cupo e. i/images/ iedos o /
kul uu ipoli iikankehi ys.pd
Senne , R. (2018). Building and Dwelling: E hics o he Ci y. Fa a , S aus and
Gi oux: New Yo k.
Seppänen-Jä elä, R., Åke blad, L., and Haapakoski, K. (2019).
Monimene elmällisen u kimuksen in eg oi a s a egia . Yh eiskun apoli iikka.
84, 332–339.
Shaw, K. (2012). The ise o he esilien local au ho i y. Local Go e nance S ud. 38,
281–300. doi: 10.1080/03003930.2011.642869
Ske a , S. (2013). Enhancing he analysis o u al communi y esilience:
e idence om communi y land owne ship. J. Ru al S ud. 31, 36–46.
doi: 10.1016/j.j u s ud.2013.02.003
Soini, K., and Bi keland, I. (2014). Explo ing he scien i ic discou se on cul u al
sus ainabili y. Geo o um. 51, 213–223. doi: 10.1016/j.geo o um.2013.12.001
Soini, K., and Dessein, J. (2016). Cul u e-sus ainabili y ela ion: owa ds
a concep ual amewo k. Sus ainabili y (Basel, Swi ze land). 8, 167.
doi: 10.3390/su8020167
Sokka, S., and Johannisson, J. (2022). “In oduc ion: cul u al policy as a balancing
ac ,” in Cul u al policy in he No dic wel a e s a es: aims and unc ions o public unding
o cul u e, Sokka, S. (ed). No disk kul u ak a 2022:01: No dic Council o Minis e s.
doi: 10.6027/no d2022-005
S a is ics Finland (2022). Popula ion and Socie y. A ailable online a : h ps://www.
ilas okeskus. i/ up/suoluk/suoluk_ aes o_en.h ml
S e enson, N. (2020). Ha ing a say? The po en ial o local e en s
as a ool o communi y engagemen . E en Manage. 24, 435–445.
doi: 10.3727/152599519X15506259855940
S e enson, S. (2021). The con ibu ion o communi y e en s o social
sus ainabili y in local neighbou hoods. J. Sus ainable Tou . 29, 1776–1791.
doi: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1808664
S je nbe g, M. (2019). Conc e e Subu bia Subu ban Housing Es a es and Socio-
Spa ial Di e en ia ion in Finland. PhD Diss. Helsinki: Uni e si y o Helsinki. A ailable
online a : h ps://helda.helsinki. i/handle/10138/301865 (accessed June 30, 2023).
Th osby, D. (1995). Cul u e, economics and sus ainabili y. J. Cul u al Econ. 19,
199–206. doi: 10.1007/BF01074049
To u´
nczyk-Ruiz, S., and Ma ino i´
c, B. (2020). The b igh and da k sides o leng h
o esidence in he neighbou hood: consequences o local pa icipa ion and openness
o newcome s. J. En i onm. Psychol. 67, 101383. doi: 10.1016/j.jen p.2019.101383
UN (2015). T ans o ming Ou Wo ld: The 2030 Agenda o Sus ainable De elopmen
(A/RES/70/1). A ailable online a : h ps://sus ainablede elopmen .un.o g/con en /
documen s/21252030%20Agenda%20 o %20Sus ainable%20De elopmen %20web.
pd (accessed Ap il 26, 2023).
UNESCO (2012). Measu ing cul u al pa icipa ion. 2009 UNESCO F amewo k o
Cul u al S a is ics Handbook No. 2. Mon eal: UNESCO Ins i u e o S a is ics.
UNESCO (2016). Cul u e, U ban, Fu u e. Global Repo on Cul u e o Sus ainable
U ban De elopmen . A ailable online a : h ps://unesdoc.unesco.o g/a k:/48223/
p 0000245999 (accessed 10 Sep embe , 2021).
Van Ae scho , L., Häikiö, L., Snellman, K., and Kallinen, Y. (2016). Nuo e ,
pieni uloisuus ja asuinalueiden e iy yminen: Lähiössä asu ien nuo en käsi yksiä
aloudellises a niukkuudes a. Yh eiskun apoli iikka. 81, 540−550.
Van Ae scho , L., and Salminen, J. (2018). Hy ä, paha lähiö: nuo e ja asuinalueella
syn y ä sosiaalinen pääoma. Sosiologia. 55. 248–262.
Van de Vaa , G. (2022). “Insigh s and inspi a ion o explo a i e esea ch in o
impac s o a communi y a s p ojec ,” in Co-C ea i i y and Engaged Schola ship:
T ans o ma i e Me hods in Social Sus ainabili y Resea ch, F anklin, A., (ed) London:
Palga e MacMillan, 205–227. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-84248-2_7
Van Hek, M., and K aaykamp, G. (2013). Cul u al consump ion ac oss coun ies:
a mul i-le el analysis o social inequali y in highb ow cul u e in Eu ope. Poe ics. 41,
323–341. doi: 10.1016/j.poe ic.2013.05.001
Vi olainen, J. (2014). Pa icipa o y u n in cul u al policy? An analysis
o he concep o cul u al pa icipa ion in Finnish cul u al policy. No disk
Kul u poli isk Tidssk i . 19, 59–77. doi: 10.18261/ISSN2000-8325-2016-
01-04
Wa en, S., and Jones, P. (2018), Cul u al policy, go e nance and u ban di e si y:
esiden pe spec i es om Bi mingham, UK. Tijdsch i Voo Economische En Sociale
Geog a ie. 109, 22–35. doi: 10.1111/ esg.12296
F on ie s in Poli ical Science 18 on ie sin.o g