---
category: literaturenote
citekey: kirjavainenbarriersriskssociotechnical2025
title: "Barriers and risks of socio-technical transition towards sustainable road transport in sparsely populated areas: case of Finnish Lapland"
authors: "Kirjavainen, Janne; Suopajärvi, Leena"
year: 2025
date: 2025-04-05 2025-04-05
doi: 10.1186/s12544-025-00721-0
publication: European Transport Research Review
url: "https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-025-00721-0"
zotero_key: 83GSI8LG
zotero_storage: F4EWDGC4
collections: imporditud
folder: 001_artiklid
firstAuthor: "Kirjavainen, Janne"
status: converted
---
# **ORIGINAL PAPER Open Access**

# Barriers and risks of socio-technical transition towards sustainable road transport in sparsely populated areas: case of Finnish Lapland

![](_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg)

Janne Kirjavainen1[\\*](http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1507-7972) and Leena Suopajärvi1

## **Abstract**

Dependence on road transport, private passenger cars, and related infrastructure defines mobility in sparsely populated European areas. The ambitious goal of the European Union to reach sustainability in the road transport sector has therefore strong implications for mobility and accessibility in these regions. Nevertheless, sparsely populated areas have received less attention than urban areas in sustainability transitions research.

This article highlights the context-specificity of sustainability transitions through a qualitative case study. The Region of Finnish Lapland stands as an example of a sparsely populated region, where sustainability goals set in the Green Deal of the European Union are to be met in the road transport system. The aim is to (a) find out barriers, which obstruct the transition process in Lapland, (b) point out potential future risks and (c) describe, what implications this has for sparsely populated areas in Europe in general. Analysis of barriers and risks is based on 13 thematic interviews and five policy documents. The road transport in Lapland is analysed as a socio-technical system, comprising social and technical elements, while the environment is presented as the basis for the system to operate.

Findings of the research indicate that the electrification of private passenger cars in sparsely populated areas is problematic and sustainable road transport cannot be reached with a single solution. Highly electrified and digitalised transport system puts sparsely populated areas in an unequal position, due to high car dependency. With sparse infrastructure, inadequate funding, lack of local know-how to fix vehicles and insufficient supply of electricity in remote environments, there is a high risk of deteriorating accessibility in these areas.

It is crucial to acknowledge in policy-making that different regions follow different paths of development. This underlines the importance of finding locally suitable solutions in a global transition process and calls for further research.

**Keywords** Barriers, Risks, Road transport, Socio-technical system, Sparsely populated areas, Sustainability transition

\*Correspondence: Janne Kirjavainen janne.kirjavainen@ulapland.fi Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lapland, PL 122, Rovaniemi 96101, Finland

![](_page_0_Picture_15.jpeg)

# **1 Introduction**

Growing traffic volumes have created global environmental problems. This has caused an urgent need to reduce transport-based emissions and the sector's dependency on fossil fuels [\[1](#page-10-0)]. Under the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) has introduced policy measures to address unsustainability and climate change. The European Green Deal aims to ensure that there are no net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, whereas the European Climate Law seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 per cent by 2030, compared to 1990 levels [[2,](#page-10-1) [3](#page-10-2)]. These policy measures entail a comprehensive change in various sectors, not least in transport, which urgently requires a transition towards sustainability [\[4](#page-10-3)]. The transition means a systemic change, which concerns not only technical and economic aspects but social and political issues as well.

Research on transitions towards a more sustainable transport system has spanned over several decades [[5\]](#page-10-4) and over the years, the research has contributed to understanding the socio-technical nature of transport systems and transitions [[6,](#page-10-5) [7\]](#page-10-6). These theoretical implications have contributed to the more recent sustainability transitions research, which explores the possibilities to foster the change in current systems of production and consumption and indicate a shift towards new kinds of socio-technical systems [[8\]](#page-10-7). Still, a sustainability transition is not easily achieved as transport systems can be defined as complex configurations of technologies, regulations and user patterns [\[1\]](#page-10-0). In this article, sustainability is understood after Brundtland definition [[9\]](#page-10-8) as a state of affairs, where the mobility needs of the present are met without compromising future mobility needs.

There is a need to understand how place-specificity matters to transitions [[10](#page-10-9)]. Despite a growing amount of literature on sustainable transport in peripheries, remote, rural, and sparsely populated areas, implications of sociotechnical transitions to mobility in these areas remain underexplored [[11,](#page-10-10) [12](#page-10-11)]. It is acknowledged, that there is a policy void considering rural mobilities across the EU [[13,](#page-10-12) [14](#page-10-13)] and that most European countries lack relevant policies for sustainable rural mobility [\[15](#page-10-14)]. This highlights the need to develop transport policies in a more place-sensitive way [\[4](#page-10-3)].

Considering the need to address local contexts in rural mobilities [\[15](#page-10-14)] and the need for a socio-technical transition towards sustainable road transport, this research analyses which barriers obstruct the transition process in sparsely populated areas and what kind of risks it includes. These issues are approached with a particular case. The northernmost region of the EU, the Region of Finnish Lapland (hereafter "Lapland") stands as an exemplary case of such a region, where the sustainability transition of the transport system should occur.

The main research questions are:

- What barriers are there to the progress of the sustainability transition of the road transport system in Lapland and what risks does the transition pose, as perceived by the key stakeholders?
- How does this reflect the transition process in other European sparsely populated areas?

The research questions are approached with qualitative data consisting of thematic interviews and strategic policy documents. This data is analysed with qualitative methods and the results can provide insight into formulating sustainable and inclusive policy mixes [\[16](#page-10-15)] to support sustainable mobility in sparsely populated areas. The article is structured as follows: Section two describes the theoretical framework, the collected data and the methods used. Section three presents the results of the study– barriers and risks. The last two sections include a discussion and a conclusion.

# **2 Research design**

## **2.1 Theoretical framework**

The transition indicates a change in existing system dynamics, which is not achieved by solely technological development, but by fundamentally changing all social and technical elements of the system [[5,](#page-10-4) [17\]](#page-10-16). Although there is a need for rapid change, socio-technical systems are described as rigid and inert [[18\]](#page-10-17). This applies to the road transport system as well, where transitions have been historically long-term processes. For example, the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles in the United States spanned over several decades [[6\]](#page-10-5).

Barriers to change have been studied from several angles in previous research [\[1](#page-10-0), [17](#page-10-16), [19,](#page-10-18) [20\]](#page-10-19) and they are addressed as current issues in the transition process, which obstruct the development towards a desired future. Kemp, Schot and Hoogma [[5\]](#page-10-4) see, that the transition is obstructed by the long development times, uncertainty about market demand and social gains, and the need for change at different levels, even though ideas of more sustainable technologies would exist. Considering the socio-technical system of road transport, the road network represents sunk costs, favours car-based mobility and shapes the future of transition trajectories. The passenger car has become embedded in society as the most feasible mode of transport to move around. People do not necessarily want a change in how they move and stick to familiar ideologies, routines, practices, identities, attitudes, and belief systems [[1](#page-10-0), [6](#page-10-5)]. These issues make the phase-out of existing systems a difficult task. In addition to a technical fix, there is a need for a social fix [\[17](#page-10-16), [21](#page-10-20)].

On the other hand, risks have been defined in previous literature as an unwanted outcome or as a negative event, when something of human value is at stake [\[22](#page-10-21), [23\]](#page-10-22). Although risks can be anticipated based on current knowledge [\[24\]](#page-10-23), they highlight the uncertainty of the transition processes, which include surprises and unexpected consequences. Transitions can create rebound effects by increasing consumption and emerging problems can shift elsewhere, not only spatially but also temporally [\[1](#page-10-0), [5\]](#page-10-4). This may produce new barriers to the transition.

Risks in the road transport system are often analysed from the perspective of technologies as adopting new technologies can produce undesirable societal and environmental effects. For example, companies often pursue stable, low-risk conditions before investing in new technologies [\[17](#page-10-16), [25,](#page-10-24) [26](#page-10-25)]. Risks in adopting new technologies are presented already in the classic book Limits to Growth [\[27](#page-10-26)], where it is pointed out that adopting new technologies on a large scale may produce unprecedented outcomes when side effects are insufficiently scrutinised. Inventing a new technology includes inventing an accident together with it [[28\]](#page-10-27).

Transition processes are spatially uneven, and they do not follow the same linear paths in different regions [[29–](#page-10-28) [31\]](#page-10-29). Therefore, it is particularly important to understand, which kinds of barriers obstruct the transition process and what effects the transition has in sparsely populated areas. These areas often have to take the position of a periphery, providing resources to other regions, while simultaneously suffering relative scarcity of relevant assets to produce transitions. The transport connections can be insufficient and expensive, which deteriorates accessibility [[12](#page-10-11), [32](#page-10-30)]. These issues make sparsely populated areas vulnerable to risks in the transition process, which can create further barriers to change. For example, the lack of sufficient infrastructure and adequate access to technology have set barriers to introducing smart mobility solutions in low-density areas [[13](#page-10-12), [15,](#page-10-14) [33](#page-10-31)].

The widely used depiction of the socio-technical system of land-based transport by Geels [\[6](#page-10-5), p. 446] neglects this spatiality of the transition process. To address this issue, Fig. [1](#page-2-0) was created as a framework during the analysis of the data. The environment represents the spatiality of the transition and provides the framework where the transport system operates.

Combining socio-ecological, socio-economic and socio-technical approaches to systemic change [[1\]](#page-10-0), the model incorporates resources, infrastructure and industry into political, economic and cultural dimensions of the socio-technical system of road transport. Rather than describing the transition process through niches, regimes and landscape events as presented in Multi-Level Perspective [[34\]](#page-10-32), the model aims to point out the role of different elements of the socio-technical system at a given point of time and in a certain environment. It may be used in conceptualising other socio-technical systems as

<span id="page-2-0"></span>![](_page_2_Figure_9.jpeg)

**Fig. 1** Socio-technical system of road transport (inspired by [\[6](#page-10-5), p. 446])

well. The presented model is further discussed in the following sections.

## **2.2 Case background, data and methods**

Although environmental threats are global, they occur locally. Lapland stands as an example of a sparsely populated region, where the sustainability transition should occur. Case study was chosen as a research strategy since it provides an opportunity to study the issue in-depth and analyse the dynamics of transitions from a local viewpoint [[35](#page-11-0), [36](#page-11-1)]. In the case of Lapland, the barriers and risks related to the sustainability transition of the road transport system can inform other cases as well. Even context-dependent results can provide relevant information about the ongoing change [\[37](#page-11-2)].

Lapland can be considered a critical case due to its location in the strategically important Arctic region. Global warming has significant effects in the Arctic [\[38](#page-11-3)], and the region faces international economic and strategic interests concerning natural resources [[39\]](#page-11-4). Meanwhile, the region shares the same issues considering accessibility as many other European sparsely populated areas [\[32](#page-10-30)].

Lapland is larger by area than several EU countries, with a total area of 98 983 square kilometres, excluding sea water, and is one of the least densely populated NUTS-3-regions of the EU with a population density of 1.9 persons per square kilometre [[40,](#page-11-5) [41\]](#page-11-6). In Northern Finland, roads are the main artilleries in the transport system and are vital for the accessibility of the region, as the railway network does not extend to most northern parts of the country. Therefore, Lapland is highly dependent on private passenger cars as well as road-based mobility overall. To illustrate the size of the region, distances from five different directions to Lapland's administrative capital Rovaniemi are presented in Map [1](#page-3-0).

The data consists of 13 thematic interviews conducted in the spring of 2023, with 21 interviewees representing different sectors of the transport system and five strategic policy documents concerning the transport system at supranational, national, and regional levels. The data

<span id="page-3-0"></span>![](_page_3_Figure_10.jpeg)

**Map. 1** Distances by road from five towns or villages to Rovaniemi

<span id="page-4-0"></span>**Table 1** Categorised interviews and corresponding references in the text

| Category          | Interviews                                      |  |
|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--|
| A. Industry       | A1 = Car retail and maintenance company         |  |
|                   | A2 = Electric vehicle charging station network  |  |
|                   | company                                         |  |
|                   | A3 = Magazine specialised in technology, auto   |  |
|                   | mobiles, and industrial processes               |  |
| B. Economy        | B1 = Finnish taxi dispatch centre               |  |
|                   | B2 = Lapland Chamber of Commerce                |  |
|                   | B3 = Business Finland                           |  |
| C. Resources      | C1 = Energy company                             |  |
| D. Culture        | D1 = Finnish Road Safety Council¹               |  |
|                   | D2 = Bus operator¹                              |  |
|                   | D3 = The Automobile and Touring Club of Finland |  |
|                   | D4 = Association of Finnish Municipalities      |  |
| E. Infrastructure | E1 = Regional Council of Lapland                |  |
|                   | E2 = Centre for Economic Development, Trans     |  |
|                   | port and the Environment for Lapland            |  |
| F. Politics       | F1 = Ministry of Transport and Communications   |  |
|                   | of Finland²                                     |  |
|                   | F2 = Finnish Transport and Communications       |  |
|                   | Agency²                                         |  |

collection and analysis followed the guidelines of the Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity [\[42](#page-11-7)]. An informed consent form addressing the aim of the research, anonymity, storage, and confidentiality was sent to each interviewee.

To provide a representative outlook of the road transport system in Lapland, the depiction of the socio-technical system of land-based transport by Geels [\[6,](#page-10-5) p. 446] was used during the interview collection phase. Twelve interviewees out of 21 operated specifically in Lapland, while the rest represented the national point of view. The interviewed stakeholders were categorised by Fig. [1](#page-2-0) (Table [1\)](#page-4-0) for analytical purposes and clarity. The number in superscript indicates that the interviewees were interviewed in the same session.

The mean duration of the interviews was 51 min and included one to three participants per session. The main objective was to find out, how the interviewees outline the sustainability transition of the road transport system and what kind of risks and barriers they see in the transition process. To achieve this, the interviews were conducted based on a thematic interview structure, which gave the interviewees the possibility to talk about issues important to them. The interview data corpus included approximately 150 pages of transcribed text (12 pt) in total. Since the interviews were conducted in Finnish, quotations in this article have been translated.

The policy documents were selected based on their regional importance and relevancy to the road transport system of Finland and Lapland and the analysis aimed to gather an understanding of supranational, national,

<span id="page-4-1"></span>**Table 2** Analysed policy documents

| Document name                                              | Publisher                                                 | Year |
|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|------|
| Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy<br>(SSMS)          | European<br>Commission                                    | 2020 |
| Roadmap to fossil-free transport (RFT)                     | Ministry of Transport<br>and Communications<br>of Finland | 2021 |
| The National Transport System Plan for<br>2021–2032 (NTSP) | Finnish Government                                        | 2021 |
| The Lapland Regional Programme 2022-<br>2025 (LRP)         | Regional Council of<br>Lapland                            | 2021 |
| The Transport System Plan for Lapland<br>2040 (TSPL)       | Regional Council of<br>Lapland                            | 2021 |
|                                                            |                                                           |      |

and regional interests concerning socio-technical transition in the road transport system. The Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (2020) is an essential document on the implementation of the European Green Deal. The document guides the path towards a sustainable transport system on the supranational level. The National Transport System Plan (2021) is the most comprehensive long-term policy document on the development of the Finnish transport system. The plan extends over 12 years and is thus relevant in guiding the transition towards sustainability of the transport system. As for the Roadmap to fossil-free transport (2021), the document has a more enforcing role and it provides more detailed steps towards emission reductions by reducing the dependency on fossil fuels. Together these three documents provide a perspective on the Finnish road transport system and measures towards sustainability. As for the regional perspective, the Lapland Regional Programme (2021) and the Transport System Plan for Lapland (2021) are key strategies for regional transport development in Lapland. These documents represent the regional and local points of view on the sustainability transition of the road transport system in Lapland. The documents are all inherently strategic but carry different names, such as plan, roadmap, and programme. This variety of different text genres was deliberate to produce a broad overview of the transition process towards sustainability (Table [2\)](#page-4-1).

The analysis of the data followed qualitative research procedures [\[43](#page-11-8)]. Based on the theory of socio-technical transitions towards sustainability, the data was organised, systematically read and coded into three categories. The first category included how the transition is understood, the second category included perceptions of barriers, and the third category included perceptions of risks. After the primary categorisation, the categories were deductively analysed and seven central themes emerged. Based on these themes, a developed model of a socio-technical system (Fig. [1\)](#page-2-0) was created. Emergent themes– industry, infrastructure, resources, culture, economy, politics and the environment– acted as broad units of analysis, which were coded and analysed in relation to the transition, barriers and risks. The results are presented in the following section.

# **3 Barriers and risks**

In the subsequent sections, the emergent barriers and risks are presented based on the data analysis. The findings are categorised according to the units of analysis mentioned above. Recognised barriers and risks are summarised in the following Table [3](#page-5-0).

## **3.1 Industry: local suitability of new technologies**

The socio-technical transition of the road transport system towards sustainability reshapes the relevant industry sectors of the road transport system, but simultaneously the decisions made within the automotive industry have significant implications for how the transition turns out. The direction of the passenger car industry is clear in this sense. The European Parliament and the European Council reached an agreement in 2023 that all new cars and vans sold in the EU as of 2035 must not produce any CO₂ [[44\]](#page-11-9) and several car manufacturers have announced the production of mostly or only electric cars in the future [[45,](#page-11-10) [46](#page-11-11)]. The collected interview data indicates as well that electric vehicles will be the main mode of passenger car transport in the future. Nevertheless, the renewal of the car fleet has been slow in Lapland (TSPL 2021). By the end of 2024, the share of all-electric passenger cars of total passenger cars in the region was 2.1 per cent, whereas the national share in Finland was 4.3 per cent [[47\]](#page-11-12).

The diffusion of electric vehicles to Lapland was widely discussed in the interviews. Several interviewees addressed issues such as range, price and availability of new models (A1, B1, D3), but these were seen rather as hindrances or challenges than barriers. The same applies to heavier vehicles, such as lorries and buses. Even though there have been indicators of electrification (A2, C1, F1, F2), long mileages, schedules, battery weights, battery capacities and development of the distribution network hinder the process (A1, B1, E2, F1, F2). A significant barrier turned out to be uncertainty, as there is reluctance to make high-risk investments. For example, entrepreneurs working in the transport sector may not want to invest in technologies which are not seen as suitable for the given needs or do not have sufficient supporting infrastructure (D2, E2, F1).

"*There are still a lot of twists and turns to figure out what will eventually be the winning motive power. But anyway*, *when you try to get rid of fossils*, *at least electricity is probably going to become more common*" (F1).

It was seen as a risk that electric vehicles are not a suitable solution for Lapland's conditions or every kind of need. Technical problems in modern cars are increasingly related to digital issues instead of the powertrain

<span id="page-5-0"></span>**Table 3** Barriers and risks

|                | Barriers to the sus<br>tainability transition<br>in Lapland                                                       | Risks of the sustainabil<br>ity transition in Lapland                                                                                         |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Industry       | Diffusion of new<br>vehicles to Lapland is<br>slow<br>Uncertainty, reluctance<br>to make high-risk<br>investments | Vehicles produced are<br>not suitable solution for<br>Lapland's conditions<br>Different technologies are<br>not functional in remote<br>areas |
| Infrastructure | High reliance on the<br>sparse infrastructure                                                                     | The sparse infrastructure<br>is not functional or the<br>capacity is insufficient                                                             |
|                | Diffusion of alterna<br>tive fuel distribution<br>network is slow                                                 | Shortcomings in infra<br>structure deteriorate<br>accessibility and traffic<br>safety                                                         |
| Resources      | Current knowledge<br>is tied to existing<br>technologies                                                          | The relevant resources are<br>not available                                                                                                   |
|                | Lack of relevant know<br>how and workforce                                                                        | Too strong focus on<br>electrification and limited<br>contingency plans                                                                       |
| Culture        | High car dependence<br>shaped by needs, hab<br>its and attitudes                                                  | Disruptions in adapata<br>tion of local mobility<br>culture to the new system                                                                 |
|                | Other transport modes<br>cannot compete with<br>the car                                                           | Everybody has not the<br>possibility, ability or will to<br>use new technologies                                                              |
| Economy        | The transition is<br>expensive                                                                                    | The provision of local<br>services deteriorates                                                                                               |
|                | Lack of money, insuffi<br>cient funding and rising<br>level of costs                                              | Inreasing cost of transport<br>endangers possibility to<br>move or steer people to<br>choose unsustainable<br>modes of transport              |
| Politics       | Lack of consensus                                                                                                 | Decision-making favours<br>more densely populated<br>areas                                                                                    |
|                | Regionally unsuitable<br>regulation                                                                               | Sustainability is not seen<br>as a priority topic                                                                                             |
| Environment    | The transition unfolds<br>in different manner in<br>different environments                                        | Harsh weather conditions<br>deteriorate accessibility                                                                                         |
|                | Harsh and rapidly<br>changing weather, ex<br>treme weather events                                                 | Technological develop<br>ment contributes to envi<br>ronmental degradation                                                                    |

(A3) and the functionality of different technologies in remote areas is growingly crucial. With high-tech vehicles, troubleshooting complex digital errors on-site is not often possible (D3).

*"When you start to have that high-tech vehicle on those arctic roads at 40 degrees below zero– of course*, *testing and development is going to be done– but I'd still bet that a basic petrol car with that frost would be best if you consider these conditions"* (B2).

# **3.2 Infrastructure: low capacity and increasing deterioration**

The alternative fuel distribution network is heavily dependent on industrial trajectories as it needs to be compatible with new vehicles. Even though the existing infrastructure favours compatible solutions, such as renewable fuels distributed via the existing network (drop-in fuels), the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation by the European Union [\[48](#page-11-13)] endorses developing new distribution infrastructure for electricity, methane and hydrogen. In Lapland, this is seen as a diffusion of the charging network for electric vehicles. Charging was widely discussed in the interviews, while capacity, distribution and functionality of charging stations were seen as problematic (A3, B1).

"*The problem may be*, *as in southern Finland already that if more electric cars end up charging there at the same time*, *there will simply be no more charging points and then there will be queues*" (A3).

As the electric powertrain is currently not a sufficient solution in Lapland for heavy-duty vehicles, there is a need for alternatives. Methane distribution is gradually developing in Finland (C1), but some interviewees pointed out that there is little ambition to develop methane as a potential fuel (B1, F1). Hydrogen on the other hand requires a lot of development before being a possible solution (A3, E1, F1). One interviewee (B1) saw that introducing it to road transport requires at least strong compulsive policies for it to provide a plausible alternative to fossil fuels.

As with range and price, also the extent of the alternative fuel infrastructure network was mainly seen as a hindrance or as a barrier which can be overcome through technical development and economic measures. Some interviewees (A2, B2, E2) mentioned the so-called "the chicken or the egg" causality problem, which refers to whether charging infrastructure should be developed when there is enough demand or if demand is created when there is sufficient infrastructure. In Lapland, the path seems to be the latter one (A2).

From the perspective of risks, the functionality of the transport infrastructure is highlighted in Lapland. With the lack of railways, the sparse road network and especially the main routes are the backbone of accessibility to private vehicles, freight transport and public transport in the region (TSPL 2021). People have to rely on their vehicles and related infrastructure because if one part of the system fails, there may be no alternatives. If your car breaks down in a remote area, it will take time for the help to arrive. If the road is blocked, detours are long. Similarly, if a connection to a remote location is cancelled, there may be no service until the following day. This has implications for the functionality and the cybersecurity of various digital solutions in transport infrastructure (A1, E1; SSMS 2020; NTSP 2021). Poor infrastructure produces risks in terms of traffic safety, the security of supply and functionality of economic activity (B2, D1, D2, D3, D4; NTSP 2021).

Sustainability transition means that also road infrastructure is sustained in a trafficable condition. Several interviewees emphasised the condition of the roads in Lapland, as ground frost, heavy vehicles and extreme weather events, such as floods put pressure on the road infrastructure (D1, D2, D3, E2). If the network is not sustainable, it risks accessibility in the region.

#### **3.3 Resources: new and reshaping dependencies**

With the technological trajectories of electrification and digitalisation, the sustainability transition demands several resources, such as time, money, suitable workforce, energy and raw materials. Even though the ideas to enact the sustainability transition would exist, the lack of these resources is a barrier. Current knowledge is tied to existing technologies, for example in vehicle maintenance. Therefore, introducing innovations and new technologies has been slow (A1, B2, B3, E2; SSMS 2020; LRP 2021). The location of a suitable workforce is particularly important in remote regions when the nearest know-how may be hundreds of kilometres away.

"*If there is a problem with the car*, *in principle everyone probably has the idea that the road service can fix it on the spot. But often you have to tow that car to the nearest repair shop. And in Lapland*, *as a rule*, *all repair shops are in Rovaniemi. […] If you go from Rovaniemi to the north*, *there's a wide area*, *a few motorists and a few cars. Building an all-encompassing system*, *which would be able to repair and service even these existing cars*, *is not profitable at the moment*" (A1).

Reliance on a set of technologies makes various networks and actors dependent on the availability and supply of resources. As a historical example, during the Second World War, when fuel transport to Finland was interrupted, road transport was heavily reliant on wood gas [[49](#page-11-14)]. The current system of road transport in Lapland is dependent on fossil fuels and a transition away from fossil fuels does not remove these dependencies, but reshapes them and creates new ones. Some interviewees (D4, F1) expressed concern that there is a too strong focus on the electricity-based technology path, "putting all eggs in the same basket". As resources to produce and a reliant supply of electricity are of utmost importance, interruptions in electricity use, production and distribution will have wider consequences and require proper backup plans when an increasing share of the system components is electrified (D3, E2, F1, F2).

# **3.4 Culture: car dependence and local need to move**

The transition entails also a change in the mobility culture, which is shaped by economic activity, daily needs, behaviour, habits and discourses. Although mobility culture cannot be territorially defined, it can be stated that the car– as a set of different technologies– is an integral part of the current mobility culture in Lapland. In 2021, 90 per cent of kilometres travelled domestically in the region were made by car, whether as the driver or the passenger (TSPL 2021).

High car dependence is a barrier to the sustainability transition. In Lapland, there is a lack of alternatives to a car on many occasions. Transport services or other modes of transport do not provide the same amount of flexibility, comfort and privacy, there are negative attitudes towards new technologies and several regions are accessible only by car within reasonable time and expense. Transport services do not currently provide a plausible alternative for private passenger cars in many sub-regions of Lapland due to low passenger volumes and a lack of co-operation in intermodal travel chains (D1, D2, D4, E1, E2; TSPL 2021). This is acknowledged in both the National Transport System Plan (2021, p. 33) and the Lapland Regional Programme (2021, p. 55), which state that people's opportunities to choose sustainable modes of transport are promoted especially in urban areas. Respectively, several interviewees agreed that in the future, cars will remain an important transport mode in Lapland.

"*The further you go from the urban area*, *I dare to say*, *the more handbrake is pulled for any change. So*, *there is a lot to do with challenging one's way of thinking*" (B1).

Introducing new technologies to local mobility culture produces risks. When the ability to move is increasingly dependent on complex technologies embedded in the transport system, the mobility culture has to adapt to these configurations. The problems arise, as not everybody has the possibility, ability or will to use new technologies (A1, A3, B1, D3, E2; SSMS 2020; LRP 2021; NTSP 2021; TSPL 2021). Technological transition does not remove all negative attitudes towards new technologies and decisions made not only by local people but also by domestic and international tourists have significant implications for how the transition looks like (A3, B1, E1, F2).

#### **3.5 Economy: small markets and high prices**

Lack of money was pointed out as a barrier in several interviews. According to one interviewee (E2), the effectiveness and cost-benefit ratios– on which the distribution of appropriations is based– may be obsolete to some extent and there is a need for other indicators. Low traffic volumes and demand due to the sparse population and large area of the region cannot be the only preconditions for funding, especially when tourism and military mobility contribute to high seasonal variations in traffic volumes in Lapland. Insufficient funding and the rising level of costs are barriers to keeping the road network in good condition, developing new infrastructure and procuring more public transport services (A1, A3, B1, D1, D2, D3, D4, E2, F1, F2; NTSP 2021; TSPL 2021) although this can be seen as a matter of decision-making, which will be further discussed in the following Sect. 3.6.

"*Money*, *or really any of the things that we are now thinking about in this transition*, *they are not really barriers. They are hindrances at most*" (E2).

The sustainability transition poses risks for both public and private economies. Deteriorating accessibility, as discussed in Sect. 3.2, creates risks for the regional economy when Lapland or areas within it are not considered accessible in terms of investments (B2). The transition can turn out to be highly expensive for different companies. Entrepreneurs have to invest in suitable technologies but as the direction of technological development is unclear, investments may have a negative impact on profitability (B3, D2). In Lapland, some public transport routes are currently dependent on only one operator, which may not have the possibility to adapt to new technologies or meet stricter requirements (E2).

*"[There is] terrible price competition and [using transport services] should be cheap for the customer. […] Then we should get some brand-new equipment for a drive that feels like older equipment could do as well. It is a matter of cost*" (D2).

For private people, sustainability transition can increase the cost of transport. Despite several financial incentives (RFT 2021), electric vehicles are too expensive for many and prices steer people to choose modes of transport and fuels which are not always the most sustainable ones. Mechanisms to limit volumes, such as kilometre-based taxation and road user fees are presented as solutions to address this issue, but regionally just implementation is particularly problematic (A3, E1, E2, F1, F2).

# **3.6 Politics: addressing regional characteristics in decision-making**

Barriers in decision-making set barriers to other parts of the system as well. A significant one is a lack of consensus and disagreements on the "right" direction at different administrative levels. Opinions concerning strategies for achieving the transition vary and discussions are often divisive for example between people who are for or against a certain fuel (B1). Also, regionally unsuitable regulation is a barrier to the sustainability transition in Lapland. Several interviewees (B2, D4, E2) saw that applying the same EU regulation in different regions can turn out to be problematic. The interviewees expressed concern that Lapland's voice is not heard enough in supranational decision-making, which may result in complying with regulations not suitable for the region itself. In general, Lapland has few alternatives but to adapt to the current trajectories, steered by global markets, supranational regulation and national policies. Still, some interviewees saw that the process is slower than in more densely populated regions (A1, A2, D1, D2, D4, E2, F1, F2).

*"If there are just not enough people that it would be worthwhile to carry out any huge public transport infrastructure projects there*, *it probably means that in the North more emphasis is placed on transition to alternative fuels rather than transition to other modes of transport"* (F1).

If the decision-making favours more densely populated areas, the possibility to move in sparsely populated areas deteriorates (A1, E2). For example, there is a risk that compensatory mechanisms to patch up the increasing cost of transport are not regionally just when the same model is applied to different locations within the EU (D4, F1). Also, the geopolitical position of Lapland includes several risks. As Finland has a heavily controlled border with Russia, the only seamless land-based international routes from Finland go through Lapland. If transport in the Baltic Sea would cease, the traffic volumes on Lappish roads would increase significantly. The importance of security, military mobility and security of supply have emphasised the geostrategic significance of the region, especially after Finland's accession to NATO in 2023. This has the potential to increase both military mobility in the region and the pressure put on the road network (B2, E1, E2). It may result in that sustainability is not seen as the priority topic.

# **3.7 Environment: adaptation to changing conditions**

The environment is a barrier to a "one model fits all" sustainability transition. As the environment is unique, so is the socio-technical system and sustainability transition in the given environment. Even though the environment cannot be understood merely as nature or climate, these factors have a strong influence on how the transition turns out in Lapland. Extreme weather events are expected to become more common due to climate change and the effects are felt the most in the Arctic regions.

In Lapland, there is wide variation in temperatures over the course of the year, which requires adaptation in the road transport system. During winter, frost, heavy snowfall and slipperiness of roads complicate maintenance, cause significant traffic disruptions, challenge the functionality of the technologies in use and necessitate precautions– such as winter tyres (B2, D1, D2, D3; LRP 2021; NTSP 2021). Hence, there is a need to find suitable alternatives, which fit the given environment.

"*If your car shuts off on the road at minus 30 degrees*, *in fifteen minutes that car will be as cold as the open air*" (D3).

Sustainability transition is presented as an answer to environmental risks, such as climate change. However, mere technical change to electrified and digitalised mobility does not eliminate all environmental risks but continues to contribute to environmental degradation. Growth has its limits (D4) and therefore it is important to focus on the impacts of the sustainability transition in different environments.

# **4 Discussion**

Although there is a dire need for a sustainability transition, the case of Lapland highlights the importance of current forms of mobility in sparsely populated areas– road transport and private passenger cars. Without proper alternatives, there are no signs of moving away from current cognitive routines, user practices and lifestyles [cf. 1]. In addition, it seems that traffic volumes will not decrease, especially with a possibility of induced demand when electric and digitalised vehicles are marketed as answers to sustainability issues of road transport [[1,](#page-10-0) [20](#page-10-19), [21](#page-10-20), [50\]](#page-11-15). A transition to a society with less mobility, a social fix [\[17](#page-10-16)], seems to be harder to achieve than a transition to electrified and digitalised mobility.

As socio-technical transitions follow similar trajectories around the world [\[18](#page-10-17)], the road transport system of Lapland has to adapt to industrial trajectories which steer road transport towards new technologies. Even though technology-neutrality is seen as important, for example in the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (2020, par 12.), electric vehicles are currently the dominant alternative to fossil-fuel vehicles. Still, new technologies do not fit equally to different transport systems and several barriers presented in previous studies, such as price, charging infrastructure and consumer experience [[19](#page-10-18), [51](#page-11-16)], concern also Lapland.

Currently, sparse infrastructure supports the whole transport system in Lapland. As there is limited access to alternative transport modes or routes in the region, reliance on vehicles and related infrastructure is high. This underlines that dependency on a single technology is a risk as such and potential disruptions have a strong impact on mobility, especially when there are no local possibilities to solve the problem. An entirely electrified transport system is particularly vulnerable from the point of view of sparsely populated areas since an insufficient supply of electricity or power outages have serious implications for areas with no other alternatives to move. These issues highlight, that mere electrification is not enough to introduce sustainable road transport and there is a need for other solutions as well.

Lapland is not the only region within Europe, which faces described barriers and risks. There is a strong dependency on private passenger cars and a lack of adequate transport connections in several other European sparsely populated areas [\[15](#page-10-14), [32](#page-10-30), [52](#page-11-17)], while these regions have to adapt as well to global industrial trajectories. The rising cost of transport is a problem in several regions and has already provoked social movements, such as the "Gilets Jaunes" in France [[14\]](#page-10-13). At the same time, extreme weather events, such as floods or heavy snowfall cause significant problems also in other parts of Europe and require adaptation strategies [[53](#page-11-18)[–55](#page-11-19)]. For example, in Northern Norway, interruptions have a strong impact on the transport system since there is a lack of alternative routes and modes of transport [[56\]](#page-11-20). In Lapland, winters can include several days of freezing conditions, with temperatures falling even below minus 30 degrees. With harsh weather conditions, complex high-tech vehicles are not always the most suitable option for fulfilling local mobility needs.

Labelling obstructions in the transition process as barriers, hindrances or challenges is a matter of perspective on whether obstructions can be overcome and how. As the barriers are systemic, complex and interrelated, a central barrier to the sustainability transition is the system itself. There are ideas on how to overcome a barrier in some aspects, but often barriers in other parts of the system obstruct the process. Considering this complexity, the interviewees often referred to politics. Even with available solutions, there is often a risk of shifting barriers to other parts of the system by political decision-making [[1,](#page-10-0) [5](#page-10-4), [19\]](#page-10-18).

It is clear, that transitions unfold in different manners across different geographical contexts [\[10\]](#page-10-9) and sparsely populated areas have different possibilities than urban areas. Still, spatial differences seem to be presented as temporal differences in sustainability transitions discourse. It is seen that transition is only slower in sparsely populated areas and different regions are expected to follow the same paths and same stories [\[31\]](#page-10-29). The diffusion of electric vehicles to remote regions is presented as a matter of time, although there is a possibility that future developments force current objectives to change or unexpected events change the transition process in a manner, which has not been addressed in strategies. Time includes risks and with long development timelines, future sustainability transition may look very different from the currently thought path.

Since these issues are not sufficiently addressed in the analysed strategies, aforementioned barriers and risks posit a lot of questions which need to be addressed when designing policy mixes to support the transition process in sparsely populated areas. First, vulnerable people in these areas, such as the elderly, disabled and those who cannot use personal modes of transport need to be supported. The increasing cost of transport poses significant risks to the region's accessibility and may even create transport poverty [\[57](#page-11-21)]. A clear long-term strategy to provide transport options for these people has to be created. The strategy should acknowledge the context-specificity of socio-technical transitions and take into consideration the local environment and the local possibilities.

Second, rather than trying to find a unified global solution which fits everywhere, it is essential to strive towards solutions that are the best in terms of the local environment. Since a single solution is not enough to fit the needs of all users, combining different solutions provides better results [\[15](#page-10-14)]. Local knowledge [\[14](#page-10-13)] and locally available solutions can foster the sustainability transition in different regions.

Third, reliable, realistic alternatives and proper contingency plans are needed for different environments before the transition is forced through with compulsive policies steering towards a predetermined technology path. If future mobility in sparsely populated areas is based on private electric vehicles, it is crucial to build and maintain a reliable infrastructure network to support mobility in these areas.

# **5 Conclusion**

As environments within Europe are heterogeneous, there is no single solution or idea of sustainability to address all mobility needs in different regions. Solutions to reduce emissions and decrease environmental degradation exist, these just need to be implemented in a placesensitive manner to make sure that future mobility needs are not compromised. Since mere technology cannot make transport in sparsely populated areas sustainable, also barriers and risks related to non-technological elements of the transition have to be addressed. If this is not acknowledged, there is a risk of deteriorating accessibility in car-dependent areas and making sparsely populated areas losers in the transition process.

Whereas comparative research is beyond the scope of this article, future research could focus on similarities and differences between various remote and sparsely populated regions of Europe, which face the sustainability transition of the transport system. The developed model of the socio-technical system of road transport may be used in these future studies when analysing other cases and other socio-technical systems in different environments. It can provide a more nuanced understanding of sustainability transitions rather than thinking of sustainability only through three pillars of social, economic and environmental.

It is clear, that overcoming the recognised barriers requires further research as well as research on how suitable policies would be implemented in these settings.

# Acknowledging the recognised risks in policy design and formulation is vital in order to maintain a resilient road transport system in different regions of Europe.

#### **Acknowledgements**

The authors want to thank research professor Jukka Similä, professor Janne Kaisto, researcher Nana Asare Obeng-Darko, researcher Juulia Tikkanen, research assistant Sanna Pettersson and two anonymous reviewers for providing valuable feedback and comments during the research process.

#### **Author contributions**

Janne Kirjavainen: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing– original draft. Leena Suopajärvi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing– review & editing.

#### **Funding**

This paper is a part of Regulating the Sustainability Transition of the Transport and Mobility System in the Arctic (Arctic Transit) -project. The project is funded by the University of Lapland in years 2023–2024.

#### **Data availability**

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the informed consent form presented to each interviewee, where it is agreed that the transcribed interview data is not publicly shared.

#### **Declarations**

#### **Competing interests**

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Received: 18 October 2024 / Accepted: 26 March 2025

#### **References**

- <span id="page-10-0"></span>1. Geels, F., Turnheim, B., Asquith, M., Kern, F., & Kivimaa, P. (2019). Sustainability transitions: policy and practice. *European Environment Agency* 9/2019. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
- <span id="page-10-1"></span>2. European Commission (2019). *The European Green Deal*. COM(2019) 640 final.
- <span id="page-10-2"></span>3. Regulation 2021/1119 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 ('European Climate Law').
- <span id="page-10-3"></span>4. Ryghaug, M., Subotički, I., Smeds, E., von Wirth, T., Scherrer, A., Foulds, C., & Wentland, A. (2023). A social sciences and humanities research agenda for transport and mobility in Europe: Key themes and 100 research questions. *Transport Reviews*, *43*(4), 755–779. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.216](https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2167887) [7887](https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2167887)
- <span id="page-10-4"></span>5. Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. *Technology Analysis & Strategic Management*, *10*(2), 175–198. [ht](https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310) [tps://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310](https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310)
- <span id="page-10-5"></span>6. Geels, F. W. (2005). The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). *Technology Analysis & Strategic Management*, *17*(4), 445–476. <https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320500357319>
- <span id="page-10-6"></span>7. Geels, F. W. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. *Journal of Transport Geography*, *24*, 471–482.<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021>
- <span id="page-10-7"></span>8. Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., & Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the Art and future directions. *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions*, *31*, 1–32. [h](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004) [ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004)
- <span id="page-10-8"></span>9. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: Report of the world commission on environment and development. Geneva. *UN-Document* A/42/427.

- <span id="page-10-9"></span>10. Hansen, T., & Coenen, L. (2015). The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions*, *17*, 92–109. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eis](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.001) [t.2014.11.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.001)
- <span id="page-10-10"></span>11. Shibayama, T., & Emberger, G. (2023). Ensuring sustainable mobility in urban periphery, rural areas and remote regions. *European Transport Research Review*, *15*(11). <https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-023-00584-3>
- <span id="page-10-11"></span>12. Vale, M., Peponi, A., Carvalho, L., Veloso, A. P., Queirós, M., & Morgado, P. (2024). Are peripheral regions in troubled waters for sustainability transitions? A systematic analysis of the literature. *European Urban and Regional Studies*, *31*(2), 116–131. <https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764231194316>
- <span id="page-10-12"></span>13. Agriesti, S. A. M., Soe, R-M., & Saif, M. A. (2022). Framework for connecting The mobility challenges in low density areas to smart mobility solutions: The case study of Estonian municipalities. *European Transport Research Review*, *14*(1), 1–24. <https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-022-00557-y>
- <span id="page-10-13"></span>14. Filipo, A., Ortar, N., & Sallustio, M. (2023). Can the transition to sustainable mobility be fair in rural areas? A stakeholder approach to mobility justice. *Transport Policy*, *139*, 136–143.<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.06.006>
- <span id="page-10-14"></span>15. Poltimäe, H., Rehema, M., Raun, J., & Poom, A. (2022). In search of sustainable and inclusive mobility solutions for rural areas. *European Transport Research Review*, *14*(1), 13. <https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-022-00536-3>
- <span id="page-10-15"></span>16. Marsden, G., & Reardon, L. (2017). Questions of governance: Rethinking the study of transportation policy. *Transportation Research Part A*, *101*, 238–251. [ht](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.008) [tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.008)
- <span id="page-10-16"></span>17. Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Truffer, B. (2002). *Experimenting for sustainable transport. The approach of strategic niche management*. Routledge.
- <span id="page-10-17"></span>18. Fuenfschilling, L., & Binz, C. (2018). Global socio-technical regimes. *Research Policy*, *47*, 735–749. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.003>
- <span id="page-10-18"></span>19. Noel, L., de Rubens, Z., Kester, G., J., & Sovacool, B. K. (2020). Understanding the socio-technical nexus of nordic electric vehicle (EV) barriers: A qualitative discussion of range, price, charging and knowledge. *Energy Policy*, *138*, 1–15. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111292>
- <span id="page-10-19"></span>20. Sovacool, B. K., & Griffiths, S. (2020). The cultural barriers to a low-carbon future: A review of six mobility and energy transitions across 28 countries. *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews*, *119*, 1–12. [https://doi.org/10.1016/](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109569) [j.rser.2019.109569](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109569)
- <span id="page-10-20"></span>21. Urry, J. (2004). The 'system' of automobility. *Theory Culture & Society*, *21*(4/5), 25–39. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046059>
- <span id="page-10-21"></span>22. Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2010). *Risk management and Governance– Concepts, guidelines and applications*. Springer-.
- <span id="page-10-22"></span>23. Lupton, D. (2006). Sociology and risk. In G. Mythen, & S. Walklate (Eds.), *Beyond the risk society* (pp. 11–24). Open University.
- <span id="page-10-23"></span>24. Beck, U. (2009). *World at risk*. Polity.
- <span id="page-10-24"></span>25. Bakker, S., & Konings, R. (2018). The transition to zero-emission buses in public transport– The need for institutional innovation. *Transportation Research Part D*, *64*, 204–215. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.08.023>
- <span id="page-10-25"></span>26. Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. *Research Policy*, *39*, 495–510. [https://doi.org/1](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022) [0.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022)
- <span id="page-10-26"></span>27. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, I. I. I., W. W (1972). *The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind*. Universe Books.
- <span id="page-10-27"></span>28. Armitacge, J. (1999). From modernism to hypermodernism and beyond: An interview with Paul virilio. *Theory Culture & Society*, *16*(5–6), 25–55. [https://doi.](https://doi.org/10.1177/02632769922050854) [org/10.1177/02632769922050854](https://doi.org/10.1177/02632769922050854)
- <span id="page-10-28"></span>29. Lawhon, M., & Murphy, J. T. (2012). Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions: Insights from political ecology. *Progress in Human Geography*, *36*(3), 354–378. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511427960>
- 30. Munro, F. (2019). The geography of socio-technical transitions: Transition– periphery dynamics. *The Geographical Journal*, *185*, 447–458. [https://doi.org/1](https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12306) [0.1111/geoj.12306](https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12306)
- <span id="page-10-29"></span>31. Massey, D. (1999). Philosophy and politics of spatiality: Some considerations. In B. Christophers, R. Lave, J. Peck, & M. Werner (Eds.), *The Doreen Massey Reader* (2018, pp. 305–320). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing.
- <span id="page-10-30"></span>32. Margaras, V. (2016). Sparsely populated and underpopulated areas. *Briefing*, September 2016. European Parliamentary Research Service.
- <span id="page-10-31"></span>33. Bosworth, G., Price, L., Collison, M., & Fox, C. (2020). Unequal futures of rural mobility: Challenges for a smart countryside. *Local Economy*, *35*(6), 586–608. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094220968231>
- <span id="page-10-32"></span>34. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. *Research Policy*, *31*(8), 1257–1274. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333\(02\)00062-8](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8)

- <span id="page-11-0"></span>35. Simons, H. (2009). *Case study research in practice*. SAGE.
- <span id="page-11-1"></span>36. Yin, R. K. (2015). *Qualitative research from start to finish*. Guilford.
- <span id="page-11-2"></span>37. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about Case-Study research. *Qualitative Inquiry*, *12*(2), 219–245. [https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040528436](https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363)
- <span id="page-11-3"></span>38. Rantanen, M., Karpechko, A. Y., Lipponen, A., Nordling, K., Hyvärinen, O., Ruosteenoja, K., & Laaksonen, A. (2022). The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the Globe since 1979. *Communications Earth & Environment*, *3*(1), 1–10.<https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00498-3>
- <span id="page-11-4"></span>39. Koivurova, T., Heikkilä, M., Ikävalko, J., Kirchner, S., Kopra, S., Mikkola, H., Pursiainen, R., Sepponen, S., Moisio, M., & Stepien, A. (2022). Arctic cooperation in a new situation: Analysis on the impacts of the Russian war of aggression. *Government report* 2022:3. [https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/16](https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/164521) [4521.](https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/164521) Accessed 29 January 2025.
- <span id="page-11-5"></span>40. Eurostat (2023a). Population density by NUTS 3 region 27/03/2024. [https://ec](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/demo_r_d3dens/default/table?lang=en) [.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/demo\\_r\\_d3dens/default/table?lang=](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/demo_r_d3dens/default/table?lang=en) [en.](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/demo_r_d3dens/default/table?lang=en) Accessed 11 October 2024.
- <span id="page-11-6"></span>41. Eurostat (2023b). Area by NUTS 3 region 29/04/2024. [https://ec.europa.eu/](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/reg_area3/default/table?lang=en) [eurostat/databrowser/view/reg\\_area3/default/table?lang=en.](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/reg_area3/default/table?lang=en) Accessed 11 October 2024.
- <span id="page-11-7"></span>42. TENK (2023). The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland. [https://](https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-11/RI_Guidelines_2023.pdf) [tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-11/RI\\_Guidelines\\_2023.pdf.](https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-11/RI_Guidelines_2023.pdf) Accessed 7 March 2024.
- <span id="page-11-8"></span>43. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). *Designing qualitative research*. Sage.
- <span id="page-11-9"></span>44. Regulation 2023/851 Regulation (EU) 2023/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2023 amending regulation (EU) 2019/631 as regards strengthening the CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles in line with the union's increased climate ambition (Text with EEA relevance).
- <span id="page-11-10"></span>45. Lawson, A. (2023). Nissan vows to go all-electric by 2030 despite Sunak delay on petrol ban. The Guardian 25.9.2023. [https://www.theguardian.com/busin](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/25/nissan-all-electric-by-2030-rishi-sunak-petrol-ban-europe) [ess/2023/sep/25/nissan-all-electric-by-2030-rishi-sunak-petrol-ban-europe.](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/25/nissan-all-electric-by-2030-rishi-sunak-petrol-ban-europe) Accessed 30 October 2023.
- <span id="page-11-11"></span>46. Volvo (2021). Volvo Cars to be fully electric by 2030. [https://www.media.volvo](https://www.media.volvocars.com/us/en-us/media/pressreleases/277409/volvo-cars-to-be-fully-electric-by-2030) [cars.com/us/en-us/media/pressreleases/277409/volvo-cars-to-be-fully-electr](https://www.media.volvocars.com/us/en-us/media/pressreleases/277409/volvo-cars-to-be-fully-electric-by-2030) [ic-by-2030.](https://www.media.volvocars.com/us/en-us/media/pressreleases/277409/volvo-cars-to-be-fully-electric-by-2030) Accessed 30 October 2023.
- <span id="page-11-12"></span>47. Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (2025). Passenger cars in traffic on 31 December 2024 by area. [https://trafi2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/fi/TraFi/](https://trafi2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/fi/TraFi/TraFi__Liikennekaytossa_olevat_ajoneuvot/010_kanta_tau_101.px) [TraFi\\_\\_Liikennekaytossa\\_olevat\\_ajoneuvot/010\\_kanta\\_tau\\_101.px](https://trafi2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/fi/TraFi/TraFi__Liikennekaytossa_olevat_ajoneuvot/010_kanta_tau_101.px). Accessed 6 February 2025.

- <span id="page-11-13"></span>48. Regulation 2023/1804 Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, and repealing directive 2014/94/EU (Text with EEA relevance).
- <span id="page-11-14"></span>49. Pyökäri, S. (2012). Häkäautot Ovat Vaarallisia! Autoliikenteen Puukaasuttimet Ja Häkämyrkytykset Suomessa 1939–1945. In J. Keskinen, S. Seppälä, & K. Teräs (Eds.), *Häkäpöntöistä nurkkatansseihin– Arjen Ilmiöitä sota-aikana* (pp. 111–147). Uniprint. (in Finnish).
- <span id="page-11-15"></span>50. Henderson, J. (2020). EVs are not the answer: A mobility justice critique of electric vehicle transitions. *Annals of the American Association of Geographers*, *110*(6), 1993–2010. <https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1744422>
- <span id="page-11-16"></span>51. Sandman, N., Sahari, E., & Koponen, A. (2024). But can it drive to Lapland? A comparison of electric vehicle owners with the general population for identification of attitudes, concerns and barriers related to electric vehicle adoption in Finland. *PLOS Clim*, *3*(10), e0000346. [https://doi.org/10.1371/jour](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000346) [nal.pclm.0000346](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000346)
- <span id="page-11-17"></span>52. Wiersma, J., Bertolini, L., & Straatemeier, T. (2017). Adapting Spatial conditions to reduce car dependency in mid-sized 'post growth' European City regions: The case of South Limburg, Netherlands. *Transport Policy*, *55*, 62–69. [https://d](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.12.004) [oi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.12.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.12.004)
- <span id="page-11-18"></span>53. Barjouei, A. S., Gudmestad, O. T., & Barabady, J. (2020). Road transportation challenges in the Arctic. *WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences*, *129*(229). [ht](https://doi.org/10.2495/RISK200201) [tps://doi.org/10.2495/RISK200201](https://doi.org/10.2495/RISK200201)
- 54. Gössling, S., Neger, C., Steiger, R., & Bell, R. (2023). Weather, climate change, and transport: A review. *Natural Hazards (Dordrecht)*, *118*(2), 1341–1360. [https:](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06054-2) [//doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06054-2](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06054-2)
- <span id="page-11-19"></span>55. Mitsakis, E., Papanikolaou, A., Ayfadopoulou, G., Salanova, J., Doll, C., Giannopoulos, G., & Zerefos, C. (2014). An integrated framework for linking climate change impacts to emergency adaptation strategies for transport networks. *European Transport Research Review*, *6*(2), 103–111. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s1](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-013-0114-0) [2544-013-0114-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-013-0114-0)
- <span id="page-11-20"></span>56. Bardal, K. G. (2017). Impacts of adverse weather on Arctic road transport. *Journal of Transport Geography*, *59*, 49–58. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.01.007) [017.01.007](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.01.007)
- <span id="page-11-21"></span>57. Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? *Transport Policy*, *20*, 105–113. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013>

# **Publisher's note**

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.