Arts and culture have been highlighted as a vital and versatile resource for urban change and regeneration in cities and urban policy since the mid-1980s (e.g., Landry et al., 1996; Markusen and Gadwa, 2010) also influencing the urbanisation of cultural policy (Grodach, 2009, 2017). In the recent literature and policies on culture and cities, arts and culture are characterised as a context for citizens to participate in and contribute to the development of their communities (Matarasso, 1998; UNESCO, 2012, 2016). Additionally, studies have established the cross-administrative nature of culture in the development of cities (Hirvi-Ijäs et al., 2020; Mangset, 2020). Discourses of cultural policy in urban context have found to be intertwined with other policies such as social and economic policies, while the focus of policies has been found to vary in different areas of cities (see also Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris, 2007; Bell and Orozco, 2021; Luonila and Ruokolainen, 2023).

In recent years the focus of urban cultural policy has transformed from building a creative city to achieving sustainable cities (Duxbury and Jeannotte, 2010; Duxbury et al., 2016); a trend that significantly influences urban cultural policy. Questions concerning the relation of culture and sustainability have received increasing attention among scholars, decision-makers and practitioners. Simultaneously, abstract and vague definitions as well as diverse use of both terms have caused a plethora of challenges in the development of theoretical conceptualizations (Soini and Birkeland, 2014; Soini and Dessein, 2016).

Soini and Dessein (2016, p. 166–167), aiming to clarify these vague terms and concepts, identified three roles of culture in the scientific discourses of cultural sustainability. These roles posit culture in sustainability, culture for sustainability and culture as sustainability. According to these authors, the first representation considers culture as if it had an independent role in sustainability. In this representation culture is considered capital and an achievement in development. In the second representation, culture for sustainability, culture is seen as a way of life. Culture is assigned a mediating role to achieve economic, social and ecological sustainability. Culture for sustainability suggests that both material and immaterial culture are seen as an essential resource for local and regional economic development. The third representation considers culture as semiosis and a necessary foundation for meeting the overall aims of sustainability considering development as a cultural process (Ibid). Duxbury et al. (2012) supplement the representations of culture as capital and a way of life with two further dimensions. According to these authors the meaning of culture should be recognised as an essential binding element providing the values emphasising sustainable (or unsustainable) activities. Additionally, they draw attention to understanding culture as a creative expression that provides insights on contemporary society, environmental/sustainability issues and concerns about our future (Duxbury et al., 2012), which is our focus in this study.

Undeniably, as Soini and Dessein (2016, p. 1) emphasise, it is crucial and required to explicitly integrate culture into the sustainability discourse, as achieving sustainability goals depend fundamentally on human accounts, actions and behaviour which are, in turn, culturally embedded (see also Mason and Turner, 2020). Culture is, as Mercer (2002, p. xviii) defines it, the “ways we behave, earn money, share experiences, live together, communicate and understand difference”. However, the “cultural dimension”, as Mercer argues (ibid), is often paramount but unrecognised beside the others, such as economic, social or environmental policies. Duxbury et al. (2017) share this viewpoint and propose four roles that cultural policy can play in achieving sustainable development. According to the authors, the role of cultural policy is to protect and sustain cultural practises and rights, “green” the processes and impacts of cultural organisations and industries, promote awareness and catalyse actions for sustainability and climate change and enhance “ecological citizenship”. However, as the authors put it, the challenge for cultural policy is how to assist, construct and guide the (cultural) actions in our society along these co-existing and overlapping strategic paths towards sustainable development (Duxbury et al., 2017, p. 214).

Indeed, the direction of the urban cultural policy discourse needs re-orientation from its somewhat economic-centric emphasis (see e.g., Grodach, 2017) in a more comprehensive, but also community and individual based direction to foster ecological citizenship in cities—as Duxbury and others call for (see e.g., 2017). To contextualise the roles of culture and cultural policy identified in sustainable discourse, cities in general and suburbs in particular can be identified as places that frame the role and meaning of culture in society in specific terms (Miles and Gibson, 2016). Additionally, this contextualisation assists us in analysing the interfaces between different illustrated representations and dimensions at community level in a real-life context. It also turns the focus onto how culture exists as a central binding element that provides the values underlying sustainable (or unsustainable) actions in communities (Duxbury et al., 2012, 2017 see also Preston and Gelman, 2020).

According to Ebrey (2016, p. 165), everyday life has been neglected in recent cultural policy discourses in four ways. Firstly, cultural policy is driven top-down by networks of experts rather than being grounded in the lived experiences of the everyday (see also de Graaf et al., 2015, p. 45–46). Secondly, culture has been instrumentalized for economic purposes to increase the attractiveness of cities. Thirdly, the “micro” and “macro” worlds of culture are rarely connected in a meaningful way. Fourthly, too much emphasis is put on individual choices of cultural consumption instead of focusing on communal forms and practises of culture.

In this article we capture Ebrey's critique and stress the meaning of the social dimensions of cultural activities for urban communities. The role of cultural activities in fostering inclusivity is becoming all the more relevant given the sustainability goals of cities (Quinn et al., 2022, p. 271). Concomitantly, culture and cultural participation are ways to generate platforms for resilient community that enhance opportunities to develop sustainability at community level in the case suburbs of the city of Jyväskylä.

Resilience can be considered in different contexts or levels. We can talk about the resilience of society, social-ecological systems, communities, or individuals, based on definitions of resilience from different disciplines (Brand and Jax, 2007; Lekakis and Liddle, 2022). Community resilience theories have focused on the transformation communities face after crisis or change, for example natural or economic shock (Shaw, 2012; Skerratt, 2013; Freshwater, 2015; Kumpulainen et al., 2022). However, there are tensions associated with the concept of community resilience, such as continuity and change, resistance and adaptation (Mulligan et al., 2016). Additionally, there has been lot of debate on local communities and their existence in postmodern societies because of people's weaker and overlapping commitments and globalisation (Mulligan, 2015). Simultaneously, in community theories the emphasis has shifted from community as social structure to focus on cultural and symbolic significance (Delanty, 2010; Mulligan, 2015).

According to Magis (2010), a resilient community means people having control over how to respond to the changes coming outside the community (Kumpulainen et al., 2022). Additionally, as Norris et al. (2008, p. 128) note, “people in communities are resilient together, not merely in similar ways”. The formation of community resilience does not take place from above, but through every day practises and interaction between people and communities (Kumpulainen et al., 2022). Thus, an active approach is the core values in the context of sustainable development. The need to adapt to change and actively participate in changes is highlighted, rather than to try to prevent changes coming from the outside. It also means not only the community's strength to adapt to external changes and threats, but also active and strategic agency in changing circumstances. In a simplified way, the resilient community is a strong and active community that is committed to a common goal, such as keeping its own neighbourhood safety and vibrant, but also sustainable. As Preston and Gelman (2020, p. 6) note, “we help targets that we feel connected to, that are a part of us, that we consider “ours,” and for which we feel responsible.”

To define community resilience, it is necessary to understand the nature of local communities (Mulligan et al., 2016). It is important to remember that nowadays local communities are just one community among others and do not bind community members as tightly as they use to. Postmodern communities are characterised by their members having some common interest that unites people. In local communities, this object is often the place itself, a village, or a neighbourhood. The cities talk about DIY urbanism, the fourth sector or urban activism (Mäenpää and Faehnle, 2021), community-led development and village activities in rural areas (Miles and Ebrey, 2017; Kumpulainen, 2018). The context of civil society and locality is about small communities, i.e., associations of neighbourhoods, residents and districts, or organised or non-organised actors operating locally. Alongside the various associations and local authorities there are third and fourth sector actors focusing on environmental protection, physical activity and sport or creative activities and the production of events, for instance. Thus, since the concepts of both community and resilience vary depending on the context (Mulligan et al., 2016), it is important how we define resilience and community in a certain study or policy discourse. Also, when studying community resilience in a city level, there are different stakeholders, roles and networks inside the city that influence the city transformation (Lekakis and Liddle, 2022).

Exploring communities' anatomy and mechanisms assists us in capturing the elements of community resilience. Being part of a local community also means belonging to the place and communication with other individuals connected to the place. In this study our definition of community is based on the cultural construction of a community even if we study local/place-based communities. We propose local communities here as cultural entities built on groups of people who share a common geographical locality (i.e., neighbourhood) and form a common social group and place-specific urban identity in everyday life (see also Delanty, 2003; Manzo and Perkins, 2006; Markusen and Gadwa, 2010). While communities are based on shared interests such as common places, ethnics, political interests or arts and culture, for instance, communication also means interaction and activity that assist bonding individuals to other members of the community. In this sense especially, culture societies can be seen as bridging ties between different groups and communities (Delanty, 2003).

In discussions on sustainable development, artistic and cultural activities have often been considered a kind of platform for action (cf. Dessein et al., 2015; culture for) or tool to increase awareness of the environment creating resonance for groups that traditional campaigning may not reach (Darlow, 1996). In urban cultural policy arts is on many occasions related to urban development aiming to develop nurture democracy and participation (Kortbek, 2019). Additionally, urban studies scholars have noted that residents are increasingly taking ownership of their environment through different forms of activism such as DIY projects (e.g., Stevenson, 2021; Kyrönviita and Wallin, 2022). Various forms of bottom-up urban projects emerging in suburbs can also be supported by public cultural policy. In terms of sustainability, however, culture needs to be understood more broadly as common values, attitudes and activities of the communities, which aim at a meaningful outcome for the community, i.e. as co-production, which calls on the community to work together on a shared interest (Stevenson, 2020).

Arts and culture provide opportunities for interaction and create meaning of life in places where they are produced and consumed (Landry et al., 1996). From the residents' perspectives in neighbourhoods, culture is a way to participate in meaningful communal activities (Luonila and Ruokolainen, 2023). Communal art forms such as theatre, cultural events and festivals are examples of how making, experiencing and consuming arts build bridges and bring together people from different backgrounds (see also Grodach, 2009; Lee, 2013). Participation also plays a key role in the sense of belonging to a community (Ma, 2021, p. 77, also Kim and Kaplan, 2004). At the practical level, participation in cultural activities builds social ties increasing communication between people there where action takes place (Crossick and Kaszynska, 2016; Daykin et al., 2020; Stevenson, 2021). Additionally, as Jeannotte (2003, p. 48) suggests, cultural participation assists in uniting individuals to social spaces occupied by others and encourages individuals to approve institutional rules and shared norms of behaviour.

According to the recent literature the most important feature of communities is sense of belonging (see e.g., Delanty, 2003; Mulligan, 2015). Here we understand belonging both in a symbolic sense of belonging and communication between people (Delanty, 2003, p. 4). Culture is a base for the sharing and meanings that form communities (Hannerz, 1992; Jeannotte, 2003) with cultural traditions, beliefs, values and fundamental convictions that constitute individual and collective identity within the limits of universal human rights (Kangas and Sokka, 2015, p. 141; see also Putnam, 1995). Culture is also a way to build communities by providing public cultural offerings, opportunities for grassroot activism and cultural participation (i.e. bridging). These activities are bridges to bond different actors creating a provision of sense of belonging among people (Putnam, 2000). Cultural sustainability comprises actions and issues that influence how communities manifest their identity, preserve and cultivate existing traditions and also develop belief systems and commonly accepted values (Kangas and Sokka, 2015). In this sense, culture is in a key position in developing resilient communities.

Figure 1 conceptualises the theoretical perspective of the study from the community resilience and cultural sustainability perspectives. The Figure concretizes the relations between the bridging role of urban cultural policy and bonding premise of cultural participation with the aim to enhance belonging in urban context.

Finland is a relatively egalitarian welfare society. It is one of the so-called Nordic welfare states (Sokka and Johannisson, 2022) with small-scale variation in income (OECD, 2020) and educational opportunities are equal (Heikkilä, 2021). In terms of population, Finland is small with over 5.5 million citizens (Statistics Finland, 2022), but occupies a large area, its territory covers 338 440 km² (National Lands Survey of Finland, 2022). In Finland inequalities and social segregation within communities are relatively low (Stjernberg, 2019, p. 547; see also Bernelius and Vaattovaara, 2016). However, in the 2000s, urban residential segregation increased significantly, and since then, many governmental and local development programmes have been initiated to prevent and reduce residential segregation in the largest cities (Bernelius and Vaattovaara, 2016). The situation is still different from that in Sweden, for instance, where the residential segregation of suburbs, especially concerning ethnic groups, has led to polarisation and large-scale unrest in bigger cities (e.g., Dahlstedt and Ekholm, 2018).

From the cultural policy perspective, cultural policy structure in Finland composes a rather stable, organised, and institutionalised system for the implementation of public policy (Jakonen and Sokka, 2022). At national level the structure of Finnish cultural policy consists of multiple government institutions, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations and interest organisations. The Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) is responsible for the statutory art and cultural policy (see e.g., Kangas, 2001; Luonila et al., 2022, p. 48; Jakonen and Sokka, 2022). The state allocates subsidies to municipalities to produce cultural services with the aim of achieving a decentralisation of cultural policy implementation at the municipal level (Kangas, 2001, p. 65–66).

With regard to allocated public support, the emphasis of funding is fairly well established. As in most other Western countries, in Finland, too, the majority of public funding to culture is channelled allocated to a rather small number of cultural actors operating in the so-called highbrow arts (Saukkonen, 2014). With respect to the democratisation of culture, the organisations funded are commonly theatres, orchestras, operas, museums and so forth in different areas and cities of the country (see e.g., Kangas, 2001; Saukkonen, 2014). Thus, the cultural policies are targeted at traditional kinds of arts and culture in Finland. In this respect, as Heikkilä (2021) mentions, the opportunity for cultural consumption (i.e., participation) is offered to be privileged or culturally active groups, even though the cultural consumption also happens outside the institutions (Purhonen et al., 2014). It is also argued that the funding frame challenges the idea of equal opportunity to participate and consume culture (Heikkilä, 2021), one of the purposes at which “welfare state's cultural policy should aim” (Kangas, 2001, p. 62).

As Virolainen (2014) notes, cultural participation has been a key aspect of cultural policy since the introduction of modern cultural policies in the 1960s and 1970s in general and in Finland in particular (see also e.g., Jancovich and Bianchini, 2013; Heikkilä and Lindblom, 2022). Moreover, as Kangas (2001, p. 62) mentions, since the 1970s Finnish cultural policy has focused on the idea that cultural policy should contribute to a process of equalisation among various social groups and avoid the wide discrepancy of opportunities for the consumption of culture. Even though the promotion of equality is a central aim in Finland's cultural policy (Kangas and Sokka, 2015, p. 143), interestingly, in recent studies Heikkilä and Lindblom (2022) note that more than two-thirds of all Finns never attend the operas or jazz concerts that are commonly publicly funded arts genres (cf. Van Hek and Kraaykamp, 2013), whereas almost everyone goes to the cinema at least sometimes, a leisure activity that is commonly driven by a commercial operator. Moreover, it must be noted that in Finland community citizenship has a long and strong tradition in society. Various associations and communities are a key resource and a functional platform for democracy and wellbeing as well as activating citizens in Finnish society, including culture (e.g., Ruuskanen et al., 2020).

Thus, leisure and cultural offerings, cultural consumption as well as overall participation in culture is a multilevel construction that relates to the institutional highbrow art structures, low-threshold participation in the events or festivals or grassroot do-it-yourself activities, for instance (Purhonen et al., 2014; Heikkilä and Lindblom, 2022). In this sense, according to current trends, “cultural participation remains a highly stratified and polarised field, also in an egalitarian society” such as Finland (Heikkilä, 2021, p. 202). As a reflection to these definitions, we take cultural activity here to cover various local communal activities related to leisure.

The city of Jyväskylä is located in the middle of Finland. In our research period, Jyväskylä was the seventh biggest city in Finland in 2020 with 143,420 citizens (Statistics Finland, 2022). One of the key characteristics of the city is higher education and students: there are a research-based university and two universities of applied sciences with ~23,000 students. The strategic vision of the city is to be a “growing and internationally recognised city of education and expertise” aiming to make Jyväskylä “the best place to live, work and study” (City of Jyväskylä, 2021a).

The main public funded arts institutions, such as the city theatre and orchestra as well as Museum of Central Finland, the Art Museum, the Arts and Crafts Museum and the Alvar Aalto Museum are located in the city centre or in its immediate vicinity. In the Jyväskylä there are also a comprehensive network of libraries. The 13 public libraries are located at different locations as our case neighbourhoods.

Regarding the suburbs, they are well established and form a significant part of the urban structure of everyday life in all Finnish cities. Suburbs are residential areas from a certain era, namely the 1960s or 1970s, following a uniform plan and located outside the city centre in peripheral surroundings on urban fringes based on the model of a forest city and the grid layout of so-called compact estates, the building stock consisting mainly of element concrete apartment houses (Kemppainen, 2017; Stjernberg, 2019). At the time of the construction, the suburbs with their modern apartment blocks exemplified progressive urban planning and the houses provided the very latest modern conveniences to tens of thousands of new urban citizens and their families. Later, however, the image of urban Finnish suburbs changed. Due to the recession of the 1990s, high unemployment and poverty emerged. The 1990s also witnessed growth in immigrant populations and the construction of social housing. In the 2000s, many suburbs became disadvantaged in socio-economic terms and underwent significant demographic changes that led to residential segregation by income or ethnicity (Hyötyläinen, 2019; Stjernberg, 2019).

Our study focuses on the suburbs of Huhtasuo and the Keltinmäki-Myllyjärvi located in different parts of the city of Jyväskylä, about 3–8 km from the city centre. In 2020, they were home to over 16 000 inhabitants (City of Jyväskylä, 2022). Both suburbs have good infrastructure and public services. At their centres they have shopping areas (like the Huhtasuo Shopping Centre) with grocery stores, public services provided by the City of Jyväskylä such as public health clinics and public libraries and some private and third-sector services. In addition, there are Evangelical Lutheran Church premises, and primary and comprehensive schools. The public transport connexions are good, providing easy access from there to the city centre. Both suburbs are ethnically and socially diverse, have high unemployment figures, low levels of education and high levels of families headed by a single mother living in certain residential areas. There are also some major differences: the population of Huhtasuo is currently on the increase, and this has driven considerable investment in developing the area with new housing constructions, including detached houses, and with several public urban development planning projects. In Keltinmäki-Myllyjärvi, the population is diminishing (City of Jyväskylä, 2022), and no major investments have emerged.

This study draws on the data gathered during the research project “Forms and meanings of culture in the 2020′s suburbs: two case studies from Jyväskylä” (University of Jyväskylä 2021–2022). The project scrutinised cultural activities in two suburbs of the city of Jyväskylä (in Central Finland). During the project we used a mixed-methods approach and gathered research materials by doing ethnographic field work (interviews with social experts and participant observation), conducting a survey in the two case neighbourhoods, organised participatory workshops for special interest groups and read cultural policy documents with the aim to analyse the prerequisites of cultural policy (Figure 2).

The aim of the data collection was to consider two aspects: the cultural and experienced perspective (inhabitants) and the functional aspects (key person interviews). While the survey sought the same overview of leisure activities in the regions, the purpose of the workshops, interviews with key persons and ethnographic observation was to provide background information on community actors and everyday life in the residential areas and supplement the information collected through quantitative methods (integrating of different methods in mixed methods research see Moran-Ellis et al., 2006; Hammersley, 2008). We received a total of 189 responses via the survey, of which some respondents were current residents, some had been living in the neighbourhoods earlier and some were visitors in the areas.

In this study we report the responses of residents currently living in the neighbourhoods (n = 164). Vast majority of this group were women (70%). 40% of the residents responding were currently working, 24% were pensioners and 18% were unemployed. The respondents were able to choose several different labour market positions.

The ethnographic data we use here consists of 14 thematic interviews with the 22 informants (see Table 1). In addition, we gathered data from participatory workshops and conducted observation and kept research diaries in the case neighbourhoods. We studied the organising of and participation in the activities, asking what kinds of activities were important and meaningful for the residents of the suburbs.

Additionally, we have analysed the cultural policy documents of the City of Jyväskylä to find out how policy measures address the cultural activities of the suburbs. The aim of the analysis was to study the role of activities organised by the inhabitants and communities of the suburbs and to determine the role of the activities by organised by public cultural institutions such as the City of Jyväskylä. In so doing, we approached the cultural environment both from the perspective of publicly funded offerings, activities produced by civil society and grassroot activities created by the inhabitants, whereas the context (i.e., place) of the study was the two case neighbourhoods in the city of Jyväskylä, Finland. Simultaneously, we analysed the public funding decisions concerning cultural and citizen activity grants made by the city's councils and also established an overall view on the city's cultural funding as a whole. Regarding to this particular study, we analysed how the prerequisites reflect to our understanding of community resilience.

Thus, we opted for a mixed-methods approach as this is often effective when exploring wide and complex social issues and global challenges that can be seen as so-called wicked problems which cross disciplinary boundaries (see Seppänen-Järvelä et al., 2019). Sustainable urban development and social sustainability is one such problem (Ala-Mantila et al., 2022). Resulting from our research, we found connexions between cultural participation and the concept of resilience as well as sustainability (the focus of current study) as an emerging finding (Figure 2).

Here we focus on how urban cultural policy appears as an enabler of community resilience and brings together disparate members of the community i.e., building bridges between different actors (Putnam, 2000). First, we discuss the strategic will of the city then analyse the resources enabling activities in the case neighbourhoods.

Cultural participation builds bridges, bonds different actors and creates a sense of belonging among citizens (Putnam, 2000; Putnam and Goss, 2002), which means that cultural participation also plays a key role in building community resilience. Here we analyse how the residents of the neighbourhoods participate in local cultural and community activities.