Crises stemming from the ecological unsustainability of society are shaking the world and various communities one after another. For example, crises related to the sufficiency of energy and natural resources as well as global warming are often addressed short-sightedly, driven by self-interest and selective use of expert knowledge. Decisions do not genuinely take into account citizen participation, even though their effects are felt far from the decision-making centers in the everyday lives of ordinary people. What kinds of factors should a sustainable future be built upon in different contexts? What should decision-makers understand about the needs and conditions of different regions and communities to build a sustainable life? 

The Kestävyysmurroksen marginaalit (’Sustainability transformation from the margins’) Argumenta project explores these questions during 2023 and 2024 by organizing, among other things, three separate events consisting of citizen workshops and expert seminars across Finland. These events approach the sustainability transformation and its associated marginalities from various themes, bringing together different citizen perspectives and expert knowledge. The first events were held at the end of August 2023 in Lieksa and Joensuu. In the Lieksa citizen workshop, eight local participants were invited to reflect on current and future global and local changes in land and natural resource use, and their potential impacts on the future of life in Lieksa. The seminar held the following day in Joensuu focused on the impacts of changes in natural resources use and labor in peripheral areas. What perspectives did these events provide on the challenges of peripheral regions and how to address them?  

Remoteness as both a challenge and a luxury in the middle of change  

Participants in the first citizen workshop associated many qualities with Lieksa that they particularly valued and considered worth preserving. ’The luxury of Lieksa’ was said to include clean nature, space, silence, and a sense of community. A wide range of current and potential future societal changes were identified. These factors of change were seen as posing many threats to Lieksa, but also as offering new opportunities—though the ability of Lieksa and its residents to take advantage of these opportunities was often questioned in the discussions.  

Securing food supply and self-sufficiency in food production were seen as essential.

Many of the changes were linked to the potential for increasing Lieksa’s societal significance and the emergence of new societal functions. Climate change was feared to bring new challenges to nature, but at the same time, it was believed that a longer growing season could improve conditions for agriculture and hunting in Lieksa. Securing food supply and achieving self-sufficiency in food production were seen as essential in a situation where food might no longer be available for import due to increasing social conflicts and climate change. In this vision, Lieksa was believed to become an important agricultural area. On the other hand, the potential halting of the Gulf Stream and the transformation of Lieksa’s climate into a ’Siberian climate’ were seen as possible risks, but at the same time, growing opportunities for winter tourism were also recognized.  

Based on the discussions held in the Lieksa workshop, the region suffers from similar peripheral issues as those identified in the Margistar project, presented by Juha Hiedanpää at the Joensuu seminar, concerning remote mountainous areas. These fundamental challenges of peripherality—such as population decline, weak service infrastructure, limited access to cultural services, land use conflicts, and accessibility issues—can, in times of change, hinder a region’s ability to adapt and renew itself.

Fears of loss

The green transition was seen as holding future potential through technological and skills development, alongside a growing appreciation for local natural resources. This was believed to foster new innovations—such as methane-based fuels and wood fiber textiles—that could benefit Lieksa, provided that the region could retain control over its resources and their processing. However, perceptions of both external and local decision-makers, as well as their motives and capabilities, were often quite blunt: a recurring concern among participants was that Lieksa would be relegated to mere extraction of minerals and biomass, leaving behind only environmental destruction for the local population. This vision was seen as a natural continuation of the current situation, where local industry has disappeared and raw materials are exported elsewhere—or, as one participant put it, ”companies come from abroad, do the work, and take the profits with them.” There was also concern that nature might already be so damaged that it may not recover, even if attitudes and practices were to change in the future. 

Who should be compensated—and how—when a specific industry and its jobs are shut down due to the environmental harm it causes

As Lauri Lahikainen highlighted in his seminar presentation, the sustainability transformation inevitably leads to the phasing out or radical transformation of certain industries and livelihoods. This raises societal questions about responsibilities related to the social and ecological impacts of these sectors, and the need for compensation. The key question often revolves around who should be compensated—and how—when a specific industry and its jobs are shut down due to the environmental harm it causes. However, the Lieksa workshop discussions also challenged participants to consider the reverse: who should be compensated—and how—if the pursuit of economic benefits from a particular industry leads to environmental degradation, the loss of valued qualities in residents’ living environments, and the undermining of other potential livelihoods and future development paths in the area. Maintaining the quality of the region and its environment, and proactively developing alternative options to adapt to societal changes, could be a more economically and socially sustainable approach than reactive compensation after the fact.  

Alternative futures 

As an alternative development path to growth-oriented raw material production, participants envisioned a more fundamental disruption of societal structures. This would lead to resource scarcity, significant structural changes in the economy and trade, and a redefinition of wellbeing. This post-growth trajectory was seen as potentially leading to a reorganization of society or local communities—such as the rise of sharing economies and direct sales, restrictions on ownership rights, reduced consumption, and a return to traditional uses of nature. Positive aspects of this path included increased appreciation for traditional skills, the environment, and available resources, as well as greater solidarity and community spirit, as people would be compelled to tolerate and cooperate with one another.  

Picture: Emmi Salmivuori

In some perspectives, declining consumption and population were also seen as supporting the preservation of Lieksa’s valued qualities, such as harmony, peace, and ”the opportunity for magnificent nature experiences.” One participant noted, ”It’s not necessarily a bad thing if a place doesn’t grow.” In less radical visions, the ongoing cultural shift in society and growing environmental awareness among people were seen as offering positive future potential for Lieksa. Appreciation for local production, responsibility, and clean nature was expected to increase. This was hoped to lead to, for example, new forest management practices, domestic control over raw material production, more environmentally conscious land-use planning, and the creation of genuinely local jobs and benefits in Lieksa.  

Cooperation and inclusive work culture support positive future visions 

Due to changing societal values, the rise of remote work, and migration driven by war and climate change, it was anticipated that new residents might move to Lieksa from Central and Southern Europe. However, participants questioned how attractive Lieksa would truly appear to newcomers if they had the freedom to choose where to relocate. Doubts were raised about whether local decision-makers understand—or even want to understand—Lieksa’s strengths and future potential amid ongoing transitions, and whether current decisions are supporting or undermining those future possibilities.

Areas for improvement were identified in Lieksa’s service infrastructure, accessibility, and cooperation between residents and various stakeholders. Participants felt that Lieksa’s unique characteristics and environmental potential should be made visible beyond the region so that potential newcomers could recognize the opportunities, create new activities based on them, and contribute to the area’s development. As one participant put it, ”Not everything needs to be ready or decided for the newcomers—let them decide what they want.” 

Transforming work culture to be more diverse, inclusive, and community-oriented. 

The definition of work was seen as facing pressure for change. In his seminar presentation, Lauri Lahikainen emphasized the importance of work in fostering experiences of meaning, uniqueness, community, and participation. Workshop participants also felt it was important that everyone in Lieksa should have the opportunity to participate, act, and find meaning— regardless of their background—rather than, for example, young people and immigrants being marginalized and left dependent on social support due to an overly restrictive work culture. Perhaps transforming the work culture to be more diverse, inclusive, and community-oriented could help peripheral regions adapt to change and create new opportunities for living, working, and contributing to the construction of local identity. 

EMMI SALMIVUORI AND ANNA MUSTONEN

Header photo: Emmi Salmivuori

The workshop in Tampere attracted 14 registered participants, of whom 11 arrived. The heavy snowstorm that day and the aggressive flu season that marked the beginning of the winter brought the challenges of hearing citizens to the fore. On the one hand, opportunities to participate are unequal, depending on people’s resources to move from one place to another in challenging weather conditions. On the other hand, health status affects opportunities to participate: if being heard depends on a single opportunity, many voices may remain unheard.

The workshop topic was the prerequisites for a good life for the diverse Tampere residents at present and in the future. In line with the implementation of previous workshops, the participants jointly developed visions for the ideal future of Tampere for themselves and their everyday communities and reflected on the structural, social, and cultural needs for change central to realizing these visions. Researchers assisted in constructing the visions mainly by listening and supporting so that all participants were heard.

Initial sentiments from the workshop and the participants’ messages were shared the day after in an open seminar aimed at citizens and professionals working on sustainability issues. In that seminar, talks were also heard from invited experts: Anna-Maria Isola, leading researcher at THL; Salla Jokela, university lecturer at the Tampere University; and Jenni Erjansola, researcher at the City of Helsinki. In addition, recent master’s graduates from the Tampere University, Saga Valtonen and Roosa Solkinen, shared their findings from their master’s theses on sustainability transformation. This fruitful dialogue is also reflected in the following insights compiled from the workshop discussions to support the promotion of a just sustainability transformation.

Communality as the foundation of well-being

In principle, the participants considered Tampere a good place to live in its current state. The size of the city was perceived as suitable: there is room for diversity, but when it comes to mobility, the city is compact – ”The buses run”, one participant summed up accessibility. Based on the group discussions, however, the realization of social sustainability also depends on an individual’s background. While one person sees that origin does not determine a person’s ’Tampereanness’, another experiences that appearance alone can lead to encountering racist violence, since one cannot know whether a person who looks foreign is of Finnish or Tamperean origin – which directly contradicts the view presented first.

The significance of communality and solidarity, along with the accessibility of different forms of community, were emphasized in the visions for the future and the perceived needs for change. In the ideal future, Tampere was seen as a communal city where everyone can feel a sense of belonging, feel safe to be themselves, and express themselves as they are.

The price of pursuing growth is increasing inequality.

Communality and participation were seen as key factors of well-being that should also be considered in urban planning through construction and infrastructure that support the formation of communities, as well as by preventing the segregation of city districts. The latter was also mentioned by Salla Jokela in her seminar presentation. However, based on Jokela’s observations, unregulated property rights and rent are often preferred, especially in waterfront construction, at the expense of less advantaged city residents. This contradiction results from the fact that ’sustainable growth’, i.e., the pursuit of economic sustainability, commonly trumps other aspects of sustainability in urban planning, especially in decisions concerning the planning of land areas with high economic and utility value. The price of pursuing growth is increasing inequality.

In the workshops, selfishness, prejudice, and a lack of manners were perceived as having recently increased and eroded communality. People were thought to increasingly live in their bubbles without face-to-face encounters and genuine presence with each other. The reason for this was seen not only in the increased use of social media and smartphones, but also in current politics, depicted as promoting ’us vs. them’ attitudes. The divisions were not regarded as limited to ethnicity, for instance, but also to the socio-economic status of citizens: some are doing well while others have it worse than before. Public authorities were called upon to take responsibility for ensuring citizen well-being and inclusion and halting the growth of inequality.

In her seminar presentation, Anna-Maria Isola also approached the deepening of inequality. When people who need special support have to ’compete’ against each other for the constantly shrinking resources, these groups end up distancing themselves from each other and decision-making. Several small group discussions emphasized that meeting different people can, together with increasing diverse participation, reduce loneliness, discrimination, and prejudice between different population groups. The importance of meeting and interacting with residents was highlighted in the seminar presentations as well. Roosa Solkinen discussed how different generations perceive each other’s sustainability concepts and how people can be surprised to find similarities when faced with each other’s different points of view.

Participation as a prerequisite for agency

Several workshop discussions demanded encouragement of residents to help one another and take care of common matters, for example, by increasing residents’ responsibility and volunteering to manage and use the areas intended for them. Tampere was envisioned as a city where anyone can be an active citizen, even if it was not economically productive.

Concrete ways to increase communality were also suggested, such as enabling and promoting different forms of shared living and supporting residents’ independent local activities: for example, the city providing premises for these activities. Easily accessible and evenly distributed leisure, sports, cultural activities, and community spaces were repeatedly mentioned as important factors that increase communality, participation, and well-being. According to Anna-Maria Isola, the same factors have emerged in research. One workshop participant expressed sadness over the reality that easily accessible culture is the first to be cut, despite its importance for residents’ well-being.

According to research by THL (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare), work is a significant source of agency and participation for Finns, which is why unemployment and disability tend to multiply the risk of low participation. For this reason, it would be important to ensure that everyone has the opportunity for active participation in society, regardless of employment or work ability. In the workshop, universal basic income was also proposed to improve the activity of residents in different circumstances.

According to Jenni Erjansola, research on local democracy indicates that it is important for participation in Helsinki that simple and informal opportunities for resident participation are available. Furthermore, the participation process should allow for different voices while accepting that the outcome may not always satisfy everyone. Based on Anna-Maria Isola’s research, community agency and the visibility of city residents can arise from small and surprising, spontaneous and informal actions: for example, residents decorating their windows with silk paper or leaving unauthorized paintings visible on public exercise stairs.

Deterioration of security and accessibility to services in Tampere is a concern

The growth of the city raised concerns during the citizen workshop. In particular, crime, substance abuse, and mental health issues were considered to have increased recently, especially in the city center. At the same time, the perception was that preventive services for these problems had declined. In the visions for the future, it was hoped that Tampere would become a safe city where issues are openly discussed, root causes of poor health and crime are addressed, and services are truly accessible to all residents with different needs and abilities.

Regarding security, several comments called not only for a functioning safety net and effective prevention of problems that predispose to violence, but also for more visible security-related services in the city. In the current situation, the perception was that problems were not necessarily addressed even when they materialized, such as in the forms of vandalism and disruptive behavior. Several comments pointed out that public services had distanced themselves from those who need them. Public services were criticized for only formally consulting citizens about developing and implementing services.

In her seminar presentation, Anna-Maria Isola noted that citizens’ connections to sources of power also increase their experience of social inclusion. Similarly, long-term difficulties combined with structural exclusion intensify marginalization, which can cause security threats, such as increased substance abuse and violent behavior that the workshop participants had observed.

Environmental consideration and the ease of sustainable choices in city residents’ daily lives

Environmental issues received less attention in the Tampere workshop than in the previous workshops of Lieksa and Kemijärvi. On the one hand, this can be explained by the fact that issues related to the use of nature are not as strongly present in the everyday lives of Tampere residents as in the municipalities and villages of North Karelia and Lapland. Moreover, the researchers did not bring up these issues as headline topics during the workshop. Another explanatory factor may be the significance of urban life for the participants. Social inequality, variation in access to services, and the diversity of residents seem to affect people interested in sustainability issues differently in Tampere than in places not built on such close coexistence. These themes were also strongly present in national politics during the workshop.

Nature and environmental issues were not, in any case, trivial matters for the participants of the Tampere workshop. This became evident from a participant’s astonished comment at the end of the workshop: ”We didn’t talk about nature at all, how did that happen? We’ll have to add that later.”

In some groups, ecological sustainability and local nature in Tampere were discussed. Tampere of the future was envisioned as a city of ecological urban planning where everyone has equal opportunities to make sustainable, easy choices in their everyday lives. Climate and environmental issues were to be taken seriously in residents’ daily lives and urban planning. To promote this, it was hoped that environmental awareness among residents would be improved through education, public authorities would have to take ecological impacts into account in urban planning and public procurement, public transport would be made simpler and more accessible, and companies would be held accountable.

Appreciation and easy accessibility of local nature and related outdoor activities were also emphasized. Based on Salla Jokela’s seminar presentation, the accessibility of local nature is connected to the development of inequality. Planning increases inequality among city residents in that when beaches are planned and built, it is concurrently decided who has the right to the local nature and landscape.

In her research on the participation of Helsinki residents, Jenni Erjansola has found that residents are particularly inclined to participate in developing their physical local environment. The opportunity for low-threshold participation increases residents’ agency and reduces segregation between city districts and population groups. Erjansola’s research indicates that participation in citizen budgeting increases city residents’ interest in influencing their residential area and the city’s decision-making. Anna-Maria Isola’s seminar presentation also showed that when people feel they belong to their environment, their involvement in environmental issues is greater. Participation and taking responsibility for promoting the common good contribute to one’s well-being.

Isola, however, reminded that when climate action by citizens is pursued at a structural level, such as in the form of energy renovations of residential buildings and purchasing electric cars, this requires significant financial resources. Therefore, not everyone concerned about the environment can participate in these actions. This may increase the feeling of exclusion among citizens who lack the financial means to act on environmental problems.

Experiences of exclusion and inability to influence can, in turn, contribute to polarization and victim mentality associated with the climate debate.

A similar observation surfaced in Saga Valtonen’s seminar presentation: climate action directed at the structural level can also produce inequality between rural and urban areas and provoke feelings of injustice and exclusion among rural residents regarding climate issues. This is because the proposed climate action often lies outside the everyday realities of rural residents. Experiences of exclusion and inability to influence can, in turn, contribute to polarization and victim mentality associated with the climate debate. For this reason, it would be important for sustainable everyday choices to be easy and economically feasible for all citizens.

The resident perspectives and seminar presentations from Tampere highlighted the enormous importance of participation and sense of belonging, not only as a basis for general well-being, but also as a prerequisite for solving difficult, shared problems. If ordinary residents have a genuine opportunity to influence and collaborate on the improvement of even seemingly insignificant matters in their everyday environment – and this practice becomes established and spread – this can lead to a just and effective change in society toward sustainability.

EMMI SALMIVUORI, KIRSI PAULIINA KALLIO & ANNA MUSTONEN

Photos: Tiia-Mari Tervaharju

Nature-based livelihoods and nature-related traditions play a significant role in the lives of Finns. Fishing, hunting, and berry picking have been part of Finnish lifestyles and livelihoods for thousands of years. However, the ecological crisis has created a serious need for social change, namely the sustainability transformation. The sustainability transformation should simultaneously increase renewable energy production while ensuring the preservation and restoration of biodiversity in socially and culturally sustainable ways.

A t a citizen workshop and webinar held in Kemijärvi, it was discussed how we could reconcile traditional nature-based livelihoods and ways of life with the changes required by the sustainability transformation. The workshop participants were challenged to identify factors dictating the use of nature in the past, present, and future, and to reflect on and discuss their impacts both in Kemijärvi and in their own lives.

The natural resource -dependent industrial city’s identity as a historical constraint

In the section focusing on the past, workshop participants considered the constraints and obstacles imposed by the past. The key question was how the state of nature and ways of using nature have created or impaired the future conditions for living and earning a livelihood in Kemijärvi. The participants identified lake regulation, forest logging, the old industrial town’s identity and its impact on people’s attitudes, as well as the lack of and difficulties with cooperation as the most significant challenges of the past.

Kemijärvi is an old industrial town where the largest employer used to be a pulp mill that ceased operations in 2008. In the workshop, one of the key limitations identified by participants was the identity and attitudes created by the old industrial town, where people trusted the mill alone to save the town’s economy and employment situation. The attitudes in the industrial town have slowed down and somewhat prevented the development of an environment that encourages small-scale entrepreneurship.

Kemijärvi was seen as having enormous unexploited potential for the development of nature-based livelihoods. Here the key obstacle was also identified as the attitudes shaped by the old industrial town. Partly for the same reason, the workshop participants felt that cooperation between the city and small entrepreneurs has not been smooth. Their view is that the city focuses mainly on promoting large industrial projects. Meanwhile, the input of municipal citizens, especially those engaged in nature-based livelihoods, is not accounted for in decision-making. That is to say, the workshop participants felt that citizens are heard but not listened to.

The regulation of Lake Kemijärvi was a prominent topic in both the preliminary interviews and the workshop. Lake Kemijärvi is already the most regulated natural lake in Finland, which has a significant impact on nature-based livelihoods such as fishing. The fishermen’s accounts clearly showed how unpredictable the winter ice conditions can be, which in turn has a significant impact on fishing and nature tourism. In addition, the participants mentioned the failure of fish spawning due to winter regulation.

Another factor affecting nature-based livelihoods and the use of nature is forest logging. According to workshop participants, logging has a particular impact on nature tourism. This is because it takes a long time for a forest suitable for nature tourism to replace the logged forest area. Preliminary interviews also revealed the negative effects of wind power on nature tourism, particularly in terms of the landscape.

New traces of renewable energy in remote areas 

The section focusing on the present examined the current state of Kemijärvi, existing plans, and their impact on the future. The participants selected the following as the most important current factors: appreciation of ’the small things’ in the community, meaning cherishing what they already have, the values present in energy politics, and continuing to recognize the value of nature. The workshop participants felt that the values held in energy politics have a significant impact on the future of Kemijärvi. However, the state of nature in Kemijärvi was considered to be decent, even though the discussions about the past highlighted the negative impacts of logging and water regulation on nature and the use of natural resources. According to the workshop participants, Kemijärvi still has more nature that has preserved its beauty than other areas, but they also recognized that nature is currently facing many threats.

The participants envisioned that, in the future, Kemijärvi could start profiling itself as a place of nature tourism and natural products.

One of the key energy policy issues mentioned by the participants was the pressure from the state to increase wind power and balancing power. A notable threat to nature and the future of nature-based livelihoods and nature use is the pumped storage power plant planned by Kemijoki Oy, which would have a significant impact on the region’s water system and nature. The participants feared that it would further weaken the opportunities for nature tourism and fishing and damage the natural environment. There was also scepticism regarding the benefits of wind power and balancing power to the city. The suspicion was that the benefits would rather accrue to a small group of interested parties. A workshop participant also raised a good question about whether one region has an obligation to provide balancing power for the entire country.

Nature nostalgia of the future

The section dealing with the future considered various imaginaries and visions for what is to come. The participants envisioned that, in the future, Kemijärvi could start profiling itself as a place of nature tourism and natural products. In terms of the former, Kemijärvi was imagined as a unique tourist attraction where visitors could experience the authenticity of a small destination where ’everything is still fine’ – where nature is still clean and beautiful. Instead of mass tourism, tourism on a smaller scale with possibilities to do activities in the nature was seen as more desirable. The utilization of natural products, especially when it comes to fishing, was also seen as a potential business opportunity.

The participants considered the most important preconditions for realizing the vision to be strengthening cooperation, recognizing and utilizing the uniqueness of Kemijärvi, and understanding the potential of nature tourism and local products. It was also recognized that changes are needed in municipal politics and decision-making, which were perceived as very slow and undemocratic.

From human livelihoods to multispecies livelihoods

In her introduction to the webinar held at Pyhätunturi, postdoctoral researcher Veera Kinnunen presented the concept of elonkeino – derived from the Finnish word for livelihood – which she has developed in collaboration with researchers Pieta Savinotko, Anu Valtonen, and Joona Vola. The concept refers to activity in a broad sense as relationships between humans, species, and living and non-living entities, in which the conditions for life are nurtured. Similar thinking was also evident in the citizen workshop, which emphasized the importance of cooperation and activity between people and between people and nature.

In her presentation, Sanna Hast highlighted the challenges of coordinating reindeer herding and other land use and the new practices associated with them. In order to achieve the many parallel objectives set for northern forests, efforts to reconcile the activities related to forestry, biodiversity objectives, and sustainable reindeer herding will change forestry and reindeer herding practices as we know them. By taking the practices of different livelihoods as a starting point for this process, it is possible to assess whether the use of the same forest land by different livelihoods is possible and under what conditions.

— traditions in which humans coexist with nature are important factors in constructing the idea of living nature.

In his presentation, Jarno Valkonen, professor at the University of Lapland, reflected on the sustainability transformation through the concepts of living and non-living nature. According to Valkonen, climate change cannot be understood in the same way as a social change in which something changes and something else remains the same. Instead, climate change is a metamorphosis of the world, in which the world is reorganized in new and unpredictable ways. Valkonen believes that the sustainability transformation involves dismantling the old and building the new. Valkonen presented the idea of inanimate nature separate from life, which has been an important component of modern Western worldview and technology. When the idea of freely exploitable inanimate nature is dismantled, we are simultaneously able to build an understanding of living nature that allows us to see the world as a kind of evolving organism. It consists of countless smaller and larger ecosystems, and flows and networks connecting the living and non-living.

In his presentation, Valkonen also reflected on the importance of traditions in constructing living nature. He mentioned that traditions where humans coexist with nature are important factors in constructing the idea of living nature. When traditions of this kind are chosen as part of life politics, the question is not about reviving tradition, i.e. the return of something that has already been declared lost, but about something entirely new. It is about embracing tradition itself as a communal lifestyle choice.

The visions presented at the Kemijärvi citizen workshop emphasized coexisting with nature and embracing traditions related to nature-based livelihoods as a communal lifestyle choice. The key question remains how to reconcile nature-based livelihoods with the needed changes in the forestry and energy industries associated with the green transition.

Moving forward with the Futures Triangle

The second citizen workshop and webinar of the Kestävyysmurroksen marginaalit (’Sustainability transformation from the margins’) project, held in Kemijärvi, discussed the effects of the sustainability transformation on nature-based livelihoods and people directly dependent on nature in Lapland. The theme of the citizen workshop was the future of nature-based livelihoods and nature use in Kemijärvi. The day after the citizen workshop, a webinar was held to report on the workshop and delve deeper into questions related to the sustainability transformation and nature cultures.

Entrepreneurs in the nature sector, other nature users, and nature conservationists were invited to participate in the Kemijärvi workshop. Prior to the citizen workshop, information on the local context was gathered by interviewing local government officials and six local nature entrepreneurs who had registered for the workshop. The workshop, which was attended by five entrepreneurs in the nature sector, utilized the Futures Triangle developed by futurist Sohail Inayatullah, which is particularly well suited for identifying factors that will influence the future of the selected theme.

ANNA MUSTONEN & TIMO KUUSIOLA

Header photo: Heidi Nummi