Fostering Transformative Change in Vulnerable Settings: How Knowledge Processes Unfold Across Pro-Environmental Initiatives

Abstract

The article explores how pro-environmental action relates to knowledge processes and fosters transformative changes in vulnerable settings. Drawing on eleven pro-environmental initiatives in five countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Portugal, Romania and Türkiye), the study focuses on locally embedded actions responding to environmental threats, biodiversity loss and traditional practices. Based on 71 semi-structured interviews with citizens, we captured how environmental stewardship is shaped through lived experience, situated knowledge and shifting roles of actors under variable, often adverse governance conditions. We found that knowledge emerges as a co-produced and relational process, blending scientific, traditional, experiential and process-related knowledge. This supports participation and legitimacy and enables transformative (or behavioural) change. Transformative outcomes appear as behavioural shifts, self-empowerment, increased community agency and broader societal signals evolving from participation. The article contributes to the debate on sustainability transformation as it showcases potentially uncharted factors in current sustainability transition studies, i.e., emotional, political and relational dimensions of local pro-environmental actions in vulnerable settings. Even if systemic conditions limit transformative processes, this practical knowledge might be scaled up or adapted to other local or regional contexts to confront dominant socio-economic models and propose more inclusive, just and sustainable alternatives.

1. Introduction

This article examines pro-environmental initiatives established within eleven communities affected by social inequalities or marginalisation in response to serious environmental hazards, biodiversity loss or threats to traditional agricultural practices, with the aim of better understanding the knowledge processes and sustainability transformation triggered by these initiatives.

We aim to answer two main research questions:

(1)

How do the different characteristics of pro-environmental initiatives influence the ensuing knowledge processes?

(2)

How do the different characteristics of pro-environmental initiatives contribute to transformative and related behavioural changes?

All examined initiatives are referred to as pro-environmental initiatives, as their main objective is to achieve pro-environmental change, i.e., to protect the environment and reduce environmentally harmful activities to promote sustainability [1,2] through local action [3,4,5]. Activities to reach pro-environmental changes range from protecting biodiversity and restoring ecological functions to resisting environmental threats and sustaining traditional practices. The pro-environmental initiatives are linked to livelihoods and are rooted in communities affected by social inequalities or marginalisation, i.e., vulnerable settings. Overlapping and intersectional challenges shape the participation and the role of vulnerable individuals and communities in such initiatives [6]. Vulnerabilities within the examined initiatives include economic hardship, rural livelihood, ethnic discrimination and gendered inequalities, manifesting in limited access to formal power structures, e.g., in local administrations that limit—with variability across the cases—a bottom-up response to sustainability challenges.

First, we aim to delve into the knowledge processes (dynamics, prevalent knowledge types and functions, knowledge sharing and brokerage) [7] ongoing within these pro-environmental initiatives. We understand knowledge as situated [8], relational and linked to local realities, formed by social position, cultural identity or traditions—produced and transformed through social engagement and practice. Knowledge serves in our analytical approach as both a resource and a mediator of action and can either enable or hinder participation and pro-environmental activities, particularly among the more marginalised groups [9]. Knowledge is included, shared and re-applied in a lived “learning” and evolutionary process of the pro-environmental initiatives. In this transdisciplinary research, knowledge (in all its dimensions; see also [10]) is not considered a fixed ingredient but as a continuously co-produced process in the group context. Thus, the focus in our first research question is to better understand how knowledge is (re-)produced, shared and applied within the initiatives and how knowledge is connected to environmental engagement. By handling knowledge as a social process, embedded in power relations and community practices, we acknowledge its important role in triggering transformative processes. We analyse how knowledge processes appear within the initiatives, including, among others, the access to and sharing and utilisation of prior knowledge, as well as the links to external actors and specific transformation processes.

Consequently, our second research focus, transformative changes—understood as a learning process emerging through interdependent processes between action and knowledge exchange [11]—within the initiatives are substantially affected by knowledge processes. In line with the transformative learning theory [12], transformation appears as a complex process which involves critical reflection, emotional experience and the development of new orientations for thinking and acting. These changes are specific and non-linear; they do not follow fixed paths, and transformation paths often depend on individual life experiences. Transformation within the initiatives might manifest in intergenerational learning, the recognition of marginalised voices or the appearance of leadership. The internal and external dynamics of pro-environmental behavioural change constitute an important contributing factor to sustainable transformation. Behavioural change is understood as a parallel and co-evolutionary process to the initial engagement in pro-environmental initiatives. Behavioural change does not only appear within environmental practices but also in other life areas, sometimes unintentionally, reaching beyond the initial goals of the initiatives.

By focusing on both knowledge processes and transformative changes, we intend to assess how environmental stewardship is shaped through lived experience, situated knowledge and shifting roles of actors under variable, often adverse governance conditions. Our analysis of the ongoing environmental stewardship activities incorporates both research focuses through its three overlapping dimensions—care, agency and knowledge [13]—and aims to unfold the ways in which responsible use and protection of the natural environment can be undertaken in vulnerable settings through conservation and sustainable practices to enhance ecosystem resilience and human well-being [14]. Instead of focusing on environmental management, policy and planning, we tend to follow the approach of [15] to prioritize participatory, cross-scale and trans-disciplinary engagements rooted in shared values in our analysis.

During our analysis, we drew on the conceptual insights from epistemic justice in the sense of Fricker’s understanding, i.e., epistemic justice means that no knowledge is ignored due to the holder’s economic situation, livelihood conditions, sex, gender, race, disability or identity (testimonial perspective), and the knowledge is also understood (hermeneutical perspective) by the holders and external actors, especially in cases such as our local initiatives where lived experiences might not fit into predefined concepts.

We also utilised the concept of knowledge co-production—which claims that from a scientific perspective the way we know and represent nature and society is inherently inseparable from the ways in which we choose to live in the world [16]—as an interpretative framework on how knowledge intersects with power, access and voice, particularly in vulnerable settings of rural communities living in ways still closer to nature, such as nomadic groups.

The article is structured as follows: Section 2 details the methodological approach, with a summary of the eleven pro-environmental initiatives, complemented by the methodological limitations stemming from a smaller sample size and inductive reasoning, as well as the actions taken to mitigate methodological risks. Section 3 elaborates the main results in three sub-chapters on contextual insights, knowledge processes and transformative and behavioural change. Section 4 provides a short discussion about the key lessons learnt, while Section 5 concludes the study.

2. Materials and Methods

The study’s general methodological framework is based on ACCTING’s primary goal to better understand behavioural change in contexts where intersectional vulnerabilities influence the capacity for individual and group engagement in relevant pro-environmental activities. In line with the two main research questions (see Section 1 Introduction), a multidisciplinary research team gathered information on eleven pro-environmental initiatives from five countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Portugal, Romania and Türkiye) in 2023–2024.

The eleven cases were identified by the research team as representative of such environmental goals that can provide reflection on how pro-environmental change unfolds in specific vulnerable communities. Access to the initiatives was ensured by long-standing partnerships and trusted relationships with environmental organisations or was alternatively sought out through new connections with initiative representatives, using local language knowledge as an asset.

These pro-environmental initiatives differ in terms of their goals, geographical settings and concrete activities—ranging from caretaking for landscape and nature conversation to development or maintenance of sustainable traditional group practices or resistance to harmful environmental developments—and specific socio-political situations. Their common analytical basis is that the participating local communities are linked to environmental concerns affected by and related to social inequalities and marginalisation processes.

Table 1. Overview of geographical location, objectives and vulnerability indications across the eleven initiatives.

Initiative	Geography	Objectives	Vulnerability Indicators
Bulgaria (BG1) Gornoslav	Local, municipality	Opposing the development of a quarry at the UNESCO site, close to the village, to protect the environment and livelihoods	Opposing the development of a quarry at the UNESCO site, close to the village, to protect the environment and livelihoods
Bulgaria (BG2) Pavlikeni-Varbovka	Local, municipality	Stopping plans for a waste incinerator linked to a factory, affecting the environment and health	Roma community as a marginalised rural group
Hungary (HU1) Bátya	Local water catchment area	Floodplain rehabilitation to manage floods and restore habitats	Local residents in a wider, marginalised rural area
Hungary (HU2) Püspökszilágy	Local water catchment area	Natural water management to mitigate floods, flash floods and unbalanced water levels	Local residents in a wider, marginalised rural area
Hungary (HU3) Tiszatarján	Local village	Floodplain restoration, water retention and land rehabilitation for economic purposes	Roma community in a village as a marginalised rural group
Portugal (PT1) Bela Flor Respira (Campolide, Lisbon)	Local, peri-urban	Transform degraded spaces into agroforestry and involve local residents in food production	Low-income people, elderly, migrants and women
Portugal (PT2) Natura Observa (Sintra Cascais Natural Park)	Local/Regional	Engage citizens in biodiversity conservation through environmental restoration and monitoring	Low-income participants
Romania (RO1) Mountain Garbage Dump Mestecaniș Mountain	Local, national outreach	Stopping garbage landfill development (with European funding), overcoming local political interests	Rural, elderly persons partly with disabilities and low-income groups
Romania (RO2) Protecting Biodiversity Bucovina	Local	Protecting biodiversity and restoring balance in deforested areas despite fear and lack of support	Rural, elderly persons partly with disabilities and low-income groups
Türkiye (TR1) Sarıkeçililer Nomads	Local and regional, national outreach	Defending nomads’ grazing rights against state policies; restricting movement	Nomadic lifestyle of living, moving with season
Türkiye (TR2) Akbelen Forest	Local, national outreach	Stopping coal mine operation encroaching on forests and villages, resisting state-supported destruction	Small-scale farmers, forest villagers and women with limited mobility

below summarizes the location and the main activities of the covered initiatives, highlighting their commonalities and differences.

The research methodology was based on constructivist grounded theory [17,18,19]. The methodology was modified to the needs of the participating multidisciplinary and transnational research team. The qualitative process is field-based and follows inductive roots and a pragmatic orientation. The team conducted, in the five local languages, semi-structured interviews based on guidelines collaboratively developed in iterative cycles. The lead questions covered four main topics as follows: (1) motivation and participation triggers; (2) participation aspects; (3) knowledge processes; and (4) the wider outcomes of the transformative changes on the involved local groups, which might also go beyond the initial pro-environmental objectives.

Interview guidelines were tailored to two main groups: (1) organisers, who play leading or coordinating roles and shape the objectives, the implementation and the inclusive nature of pro-environmental actions; (2) participants, who engage in practical activities, such as landscaping or maintenance work, community meetings or protest activities, without necessarily taking on leadership or strategic tasks. The distinction between organisers and participants was conceptual and remains fluid, since many interviewees have overlapping or shifting roles in planning and implementing the pro-environmental initiatives. The interviews with the two different target groups had a slightly different objective: questions aimed at organisers focused on better understanding the strategies and goals of the initiatives, while interviews with participants focused on their personal experiences and motivations for undertaking the initiatives. This dual approach enabled a multifaceted understanding of the initiatives by combining different perspectives.

In total, 71 semi-structured interviews were conducted in the course of 2024, including interviews with 20 organisers and 51 contributors to (participants of) environmental initiatives. Gender was balanced in the interview sample, since 35 interviewees identified as female and 36 as male.

Following the rationale of the ACCTING project, the research placed particular attention on intersectional vulnerabilities. Within the interview sample, the categories of inequality predominantly related to geographic location (52%); social class and socio-economic background (38%); ethnic, racial and/or social origin (13%); age-related aspects (13%); and gender inequalities (10%). Other inequality categories remained below 10%. Overall, 31% of the interviewees were not associated with any subjective inequality.

The interview material was interpreted in an iterative (and collaborative) synthesis process. Each interview finding was transcribed in the local language and subsequently interpreted and reported by the field researchers in English. Rather than applying a strict coding scheme as would be typical for grounded theory, we used a synthesis process to identify thematic patterns that allowed preserving context. We intentionally deviated from a deductive coding procedure of grounded theory in favour of a more adaptive and interpretative process guided by context-bound insights. This methodology allowed us to capture unexpected, emerging insights that might otherwise have been filtered out by deductive coding with pre-existing concepts. This inductive approach was chosen with the aim of remaining sensitive to local circumstances and interpreting knowledge in all its variation, with explicit care to preserve the voices and framings of the interviewees, while also highlighting female perspectives and role models.

The synthesis considers contextual insights gathered during the initial field visits in 2023–2024. The contextualisation builds on the theory of change approach, particularly to map the operational background and conditions of actions in each initiative. Contextual insights were important to understand the dynamics of environmental engagement, as well as the role of and constraints (and opportunities) faced by vulnerable participants. Case-specific insights were added to each identified pattern through verbatim quotes translated into English.

In order to ensure the validity of our qualitative research undertaken with a relatively small sample size, we used data triangulation, i.e., diverse stakeholders were interviewed at each local setting, providing divergent perspectives on the same pro-environmental actions, and method triangulation, i.e., we combined our semi-structured interviews with document analysis in the case of project-based initiatives (e.g., in Hungary) or with longer-term observations (e.g., in Bulgaria or in Türkiye with nomadic groups). The interview participants were engaged in a longer-term process in the field: before and after the interviews, the field researchers built trust and captured on-the-ground information to mitigate researcher bias (their own preliminary assumptions and beliefs about the pro-environmental initiatives and their participants).

Even though no strict coding scheme was used, we aimed to enhance the reliability of the research process through a well-developed interview guide consistent throughout all cases, and each field researcher kept comprehensive documentation of the collected data and emerging themes. The iterative synthesis process entailed multiple meetings between the field researchers from each country to identify themes emerging from the raw data (transcripts) with the help of the four main topics of the interviews. Each transcript was read multiple times by different researcher teams. Notes were taken during recurring meetings and were subsequently grouped into conceptual clusters, which eventually became the core themes detailed in this article. The cluster-building was also supported by the Dedoose (v. 10) software application to ensure data consistency and integrity. The lead questions under the four main topics served as a conceptual framework to guide the interpretation of our data. These data collection and analysis steps were described in context within the relevant ACCTING project outputs (deliverables) to ensure better reproducibility and transparency of our entire methodology.

3. Results

3.1. Contextual Insights: Motivational Aspects and Participation Patterns

While this article is focused on the results concerning knowledge dimensions and transformative change of eleven pro-environmental initiatives, to properly contextualise our findings, this sub-section gives a brief overview of the most relevant motivational factors and participation aspects of contributors to initiatives. This helps provide more information on how environmental engagement unfolds in situations of structural inequalities and social marginalisation, where intersectional overlapping vulnerabilities accumulate.

Across the eleven initiatives, motivations to participate are prominently linked to existing vulnerabilities and the inherent life realities of local people. In most initiatives, motivations are not directly rooted in a general wish to protect wild nature or biodiversity (or to fight climate change). Apart from one Portuguese initiative, which is grounded in intrinsic values of maintaining a natural park, most interview partners point out motives tied to immediate local threats to livelihoods. Such local threats range from flood risks in Hungary to serious concerns over pollution of air and soil from a planned waste incinerator in a Bulgarian village—an intervention perceived as representing an existential danger to the environment and the community’s health and socio-economic basis. Participation motives can unfold due to a collective threat; for instance, in the Sarikecililer Turkish case, the motivation to preserve traditionally grazed areas, meadows and forests is directly tied to the continuation of a traditional nomadic way of life and keeping seasonal grazing practices and rights intact. Neglected grazing rights, now under tension with increasing land pressure in settlements along the nomadic route, represent a major challenge to the continuity of sustainable, traditional land use.

Thus, the underlying motivations can be shaped by existential threats, but solidarity within the community and with nature carries them forward as a powerful incentive. For instance, the Akbelen movement in Türkiye pooled local resources to stop environment-destructing activities around a coal mining operation and, although ultimately unsuccessful, showed how a robust solidarity network can emerge from a local core group of female protesters. We observe that motives are linked to earlier actions, and the re-activation of an earlier urban movement brings forward solidarity with other like-minded movements as a strong motivation.

The success of activating motivated contributors and their long-term engagement also significantly depends on the position of public administrations, i.e., whether they are supportive, indifferent (or neutral), or antagonistic (or more aligned with business interests). Based on the stance of administrations, three different clusters of initiatives can be differentiated: (a) five urgent struggles; (b) five initiatives supported by administrations; and (c) one traditionally rooted nomadic transhumance-practicing group.

First, for (a), five initiatives represent urgent struggles that are all in conflict with authorities (or at least try to ‘awaken’ inactive administrations)—these are the two Bulgarian and Romanian cases, as well as the second Turkish initiative. They resist developments threatening local living conditions linked to relevant ecosystems (respectively, ecosystem services). The five initiatives are at different stages: ongoing action; long-term protest with partial wins; and in the aftermath of a lost environmental struggle (Akbelen Forest). The struggles address the inactivity of administrations or a business-like mindset favouring economic gains over livelihood, community needs or sustainability targets.

Second, for (b), five initiatives act in a context where collaboration with local administrations positively resonates with sustainability goals—these are the Hungarian and Portuguese cases. Pro-nature or pro-neighbourhood efforts are integrated into formally funded or supported projects. Administrations tend to provide significant backing, while sharing goals with the active, as well as formalised groups and organisations (However—the clear distinction between the clusters (1) urgent struggles and (3) traditional practice is not clear-cut for the Bucovina Mountains case).

Finally, for (c), we analysed a mobile, nomadic community whose pro-environmental practices span across a wider geographical area, therefore linked to several (supportive, neutral or hostile) administrations. This community faces increasing competition for grazing land on their traditional nomadic, transhumance route. The group’s negotiation capabilities provide detailed insights into how traditional culture and environmental engagement manifest as sustainable living practices with their own inherent logic, alongside with peer learning and intergenerationally transmitted values and knowledge.

This unavoidably fuzzy categorisation of motivation and group participation provides valuable information about the inherent logic and underlying conditions of the initiatives. It also describes specific knowledge settings (the first focus of this article) and provides context for the more pronounced transformative changes (the second focus).

In summary, our main findings suggest:

(a)

that most people originally participate in pro-environmental initiatives within vulnerable settings due to urgent existential threats, such as flood risks, pollution or deprivation of agricultural rights, and not due to abstract positive ideas related to climate change mitigation or biodiversity protection;

(b)

that beyond the immediate threat, solidarity within the community and adoption of pro-nature values are crucial for the sustained implementation of the pro-environmental initiatives;

(c)

that the participation patterns of public administrations are a key factor in ensuring a durable, effective implementation of the pro-environmental initiatives (with supportive, neutral and hostile administrations);

(d)

based on the above factors, in particular the stance of public administrations, the eleven cases can be divided into three categories, i.e., urgent struggles, project-based initiatives and traditional practices.

3.2. Knowledge Processes

Our first research question concerns how the different characteristics of initiatives (categorised into three clusters—see Section 3.1) influence the ensuing knowledge processes (dynamics, prevalent knowledge types and functions, knowledge sharing and brokerage). We observed that in all three clusters knowledge emerged as an important enabler of environmental engagement and influenced many relevant processes. The findings across the initiatives give indication that effective environmental stewardship depends on a “blend” of traditional ecological knowledge, experiential learning, process-related knowledge and scientific expertise. These knowledge types do not exist in parallel: they actively interact with and complement each other in a process of knowledge co-production [20].

For an overview of the different knowledge types and functions present in the initiatives, see

Table 2. Knowledge types and functions across the eleven initiatives.

Knowledge Type	Case Selection	Knowledge Functions	Sharing and Access to Knowledge	Theory References
Traditional/Local knowledge	Grazing rights (TR1), small-scale farming (RO1), floodplain history (HU1)	Cultural identity; enabling stewardship; resilience building	Intergenerational learning; storytelling and narration; restoration hands-on work	Situated knowledge [8]; Resilience thinking [21]
Scientific/Expert knowledge	Biodiversity data (BG1), legal expertise (TR2, RO1)	Legitimacy, resistance, legal empowerment	Partnerships with NGOs, researchers, expert networks	Knowledge brokerage [22]; Knowledge co-production [20]
Experiential/Practice-based	Agroforestry workshops (PT1), water management (HU2)	Behavioural change options, empowerment, skills development	Peer learning, participatory processes, active practice	Social learning [23]; Transformative learning [12]
Process/Network knowledge	Activist collaboration (TR2, RO1), role models (PT1)	Mobilisation, adaptation, group cohesion	Activist networks, informal exchanges, mentoring	Epistemic justice [9]; Social learning [24]

below.

In the urgent environmental struggles, such as the movement against the quarry in Bulgaria or the landfill resistance in Romania, traditional and experiential knowledge serve as initial triggers of wider mobilisation of concerned neighbourhoods. Blending the knowledge about physical land conditions, local resource use and ecological processes links to the engagement with scientific evidence or legal expertise, which is then incorporated through collaborations with NGOs, lawyers and experts with a more scientific (or fact-based) background. This practice emphasises the critical role of knowledge brokerage [22,25] where external actors bridge gaps between community knowledge and institutional power structures.

The role and the blend of different types of knowledge are differently pronounced in the project-based initiatives (Hungary, Portugal): scientific expertise and process-related knowledge have a more dominant role. Here, mostly conceptually planned, structured learning formats, such as workshops, hands-on activities and guided participation, are associated with knowledge. In view of the addressed groups and the expected outcomes, learning is explicitly designed to promote social learning [23] and relates conceptually to transformative learning [12]. Thus, knowledge blended through active engagement in project activities is conceptually linked to and planned within projects, related to the aim of changing behaviour and values.

In the traditional practices represented most strongly by the Sarıkeçililer nomadic community, we see tacit ecological knowledge—a type of local traditional knowledge—as a central component for grazing route practices, water resource (and nomadic) management, and special seasonal cycles. Critical reflection on the validity of lived traditional knowledge emerges in a broader societal context, responding to lived realities of the younger generations or challenged by external pressures. This dynamic interplay between the continuity of traditional culture and the need for change aligns with the principles of resilience thinking [21,26], considering learning and flexibility essential to sustaining socio-ecological systems. Knowledge sharing within the initiatives had a pronounced focus on more informal (narratives transmitted through storytelling, peer learning and activist networking) methods, less frequently utilising potentially more formal approaches (trainings, expert partnerships).

Irrespective of their cluster affiliation, a general finding across the eleven cases is the role of intergenerational learning in the build-up and maintenance of earlier accumulated environmental knowledge. Community members from the older generations often hold traditional knowledge and can be considered as custodians of traditional ecological insights. In the struggle against the incinerator in Bulgaria, a local contributor referred to past efforts to keep the village intact as a relevant experience and knowledge source for the current challenge. Knowledge co-production of younger participants with the older generations inspires activist strategies, activates knowledge resources as insights from historic processes or points to past scientific evidence. These bi-directional learning processes [24,27] increase group cohesion on the specific topic of co-produced knowledge or inspire behavioural change.

Regarding the specific gendered dimension of knowledge, women emerge as key knowledge holders in several cases. For instance, the struggle against the quarry development in Bulgaria, both cases in Türkiye and the Portuguese cases with strong female leadership highlight the significance of women as inspiring founders, persistent leaders and qualified communicators or negotiators within their communities. Their roles bridge traditional and modern knowledge systems—their special positions in the social fabric of the communities influence their contributions to the initiatives.

Table 3. Knowledge processes across the three clusters of initiatives.

Initiative Type	Primary Source of Knowledge	Role of Knowledge	Knowledge Sharing
Urgent Struggles (BG1, BG2, RO1, RO2, TR2)	Experiential, traditional	Resistance, empowerment, defence of livelihoods	Community meetings, knowledge brokerage with external actors
Project-Based (HU1, HU2, HU3, PT1, PT2)	Scientific, process-based	Behavioural change, capacity-building	Structured learning formats, alliances with experts
Traditional practice (TR1, partly RO1)	Traditional, process-based	Socio-economic system-building	Peer learning

below gives a structured overview of these knowledge processes within the three clusters of initiatives.

Throughout the cases, knowledge operates simultaneously as an enabler, i.e., a means for transformative changes, and as a hinderer, especially from the viewpoint of vulnerable citizens involved. The existing structural inequalities limit access to critical (scientific) knowledge, which reflects a broader epistemic injustice [9]. Structural inequalities manifest in the unequal resistance with local municipalities, national decision-makers or economic actors that have power over natural resources in Bulgaria, Romania and Türkiye. In these complex conflictual settings, scientific knowledge enhances the agency of local actors, while traditional and experiential knowledge grounds their actions in lived realities and moral claims [9,25] to assist their environmental stewardship efforts [13]. This dual (defensive and transformative) function of knowledge is directly connected to the transformative and behavioural changes—as individual or collective action outcomes—which are discussed in the next sub-section.

In summary, our main findings suggest:

(a)

that there are four main knowledge types present in each pro-environmental initiative, i.e., traditional knowledge, experiential learning, scientific expertise and process-related knowledge;

(b)

that, as an enabling factor for environmental stewardship, the mix of all four types is needed in each initiative;

(c)

that different knowledge types have the most relevant role in enabling pro-environmental actions within different initiative clusters: traditional and experiential knowledge for urgent struggles (cluster 1), scientific expertise and process-related knowledge for project-based initiatives (cluster 2) and traditional knowledge and process-related knowledge for traditional practices (cluster 3);

(d)

that, related to the prevailing knowledge types, different knowledge processes have the most relevant role in enabling pro-environmental actions within different initiative clusters: knowledge brokerage for urgent struggles (cluster 1), structured learning formats and knowledge alliances for project-based initiatives (cluster 2) and peer learning for traditional practices (cluster 3);

(e)

that intergenerational learning and the active role of women seem to be key enabling factors to foster environmental stewardship in all three clusters.

3.3. Transformative and Behavioural Change

Our second research question deals with how transformative changes and (collective and individual) behavioural shifts differ based on the characteristics of the different pro-environmental initiatives (categorised into three clusters—see Section 3.1). The initiatives within each cluster had various goals for their overarching environmental stewardship activities that contributed to vastly differing transformative changes.

An overview of the environmental stewardship goals and transformative changes is presented in

Table 4. Environmental stewardship goals and transformative changes across the three clusters of initiatives.

Initiative Type	Stewardship Goals	Transformative Changes	Theoretical Framework
Urgent Struggles (BG1, BG2, RO1, RO2, TR2)	Disruption of unsustainable practices; Social justice; Political mobilisation	Justice-oriented narrative; Community agency; Self-empowerment, Solidarity networks	Disruptive capacity, power to disrupt [28,29]; Knowledge co-production [20]
Project-Based (HU1, HU2, HU3, PT1, PT2)	Co-designed water management; Agro-forestry experimentation; Restoration action	Individual behavioural change; Co-creation and mutual learning; Social normative goals	Transformative learning [12]; Social learning [23]
Traditional practice (TR1, partly RO1)	Cultural continuity; Resilience; Adaptation processes	Intergenerational exchange, Recognition of marginalised voices	Situated knowledge [8]; Resilience thinking [21]

below.

Urgent struggles aim to disrupt unsustainable environmental practices and thus send positive signals on social justice through local resistance towards external stakeholders and the broader society. This is in particular so in cases when the environmentally harmful developments were successfully stopped—as in the achievements of the landfill protest initiative in Romania—but initiatives such as the Akbelen forest movement in Türkiye that did not fully succeed in achieving their main goals still generate important messages and new positive narratives. While rooted in local contexts, such signals extend beyond general discourses, e.g., those found in mainstream media focusing on global phenomena such as climate change.

This generalisable nature of the messages of urgent struggles contributes to one main triggering factor for future transformative effects visible across each local resistance case, namely the spread of a justice-oriented narrative, which provides a foundation for a broader societal debate on environmental sustainability, the accountability of public administrations and the systemic neglect of sustainability considerations at different administrative levels. Such a narrative also frames perspectives for future citizen action and resistance as they are related to questions of justice, equality and participation.

When local resistance confronts dominant social and structural norms, the justice-oriented narrative aligns with the concept of power to disrupt [28,29]. Alternative worldviews offered by this narrative contribute to local resilience-building, manifesting in enhanced community agency and increased self-empowerment of local people participating in pro-environmental actions, especially within marginalised communities. Empowerment is even more enhanced in case a solidarity network with external organisations can be established, which serves as an anchor point for resistance in similar future struggles.

In contrast, the environmental stewardship goals of the project-based initiatives are more narrowly confined to specific pro-environmental actions, such as water management or biodiversity restoration. Consequently, the ensuing transformative changes appear less confrontational and are more closely tied to formal partnerships and roles. In place of a justice-oriented narrative (as for urgent struggles), positive future scenarios and practical solutions to local environmental challenges prevail. Transformation happens through individual and organisational behavioural changes: participants reflect on how their engagement has led and might lead to changes in their everyday routines and social normative goals within their communities [30], i.e., changed collective beliefs and values about how individuals within the community should appropriately behave to protect the environment. This is facilitated by co-creation and mutual learning activities facilitated within the projects. In Hungary, for instance, interviewees describe behavioural shifts towards the more sustainable use of wood as a resource, while limiting the spread of invasive species and maintaining the ecological functions of floodplains through woodcutting.

As regards the third cluster, their main stewardship goals relate to the adaptation of traditional practices to the modern world in a way that ensures cultural continuity and higher resilience. In Türkiye and Romania, cultural memory and historically grounded experiential knowledge shape practices based on ecological consciousness linking together different generations with each other. The past serves as a reference point, and tradition becomes a resource for the continuation of sustainable practices—this can be projected to a positive future narrative, e.g., for the traditional nomadic group in Türkiye, or take a more pessimistic future narrative, as in the case of the Bucovina mountains village in Romania. The decisive difference between the two cases is the involvement of the younger generations within the traditional practices: while younger people found adaptive ways to sustain traditional patterns in Türkiye, there is a risk of discontinuity in Romania, which concerns the long-term viability of practices once sustained through generational knowledge transmission.

The main transformative processes arising in such traditional practices are linked to fulfilling their objective of preserving cultural continuity and building a resilient community able to adapt to modern circumstances. A conscious effort of peer learning, in particular intergenerational learning, starts to take place in such initiatives to withstand isolation from the broader society, strengthen social cohesion and mitigate skills gaps. A beneficial consequence of such socio-economic system building is that marginalised voices are also heard and centred in discussions and policy-making processes within the community engaged in traditional practices. This ensures that systemic barriers they face are addressed and that their lived experiences inform the solutions. While such intergenerational learning mainly happens in informal ways within traditional practices, it more recurrently happens in more formalised ways within project-based initiatives where younger generations engage in problem-oriented learning and transmit their newly acquired knowledge and skills to their families. In both the Hungarian and Portuguese cases, young people actively contribute to behavioural change in their households. We observed a closer engagement of marginalised groups within intergenerational learning processes of project-based initiatives too, such as Roma communities or persons with a migrant background.

The activation of (formal and informal) leadership positions and roles—as part of the empowerment and capacity-building processes, especially in urgent struggles and traditional practices—happens in two main ways within the initiatives: leadership competences are developed as outcomes of participation, and proactive individuals help create the conditions needed to sustain transformative engagement within a broader context. Pro-environmental actions offer a space for developing agency, voice and new capacities. It seems that empowerment also often applies to individuals who are mostly excluded from formal power structures. Leadership does not arise from planning or a specific strategy but emerges through durable involvement in everyday activities and a strong presence in the community. Leaders bring visions of stability and resilience through moral- or justice-oriented narratives, build bridges to actors within and beyond a local context, and hold together a social fabric that enables sustained engagement, especially when outcomes are uncertain or delayed [24].

Across the initiatives, we observed that women, Roma communities and young people emerged as informal leaders and contributed to social resilience [27] within neighbourhoods or a wider community. Gendered pathways of empowerment are particularly evident: women in leadership positions act as transmitters of hope and continuity, especially within initiatives around urgent struggles. In both Turkish cases and in the first Bulgarian case, women take on central leadership roles as founding members, spokespersons and coordinators. They use their strong social ties within the communities to shape the strategic directions of the initiatives where actions express both care for the environment and resistance towards official actors, thus integrating relational knowledge in multiple dimensions [31].

The analysed initiatives make clear that transformative change appears at the intersection of personal reorientation, collective empowerment within the neighbourhood and present systemic challenges. Transformative change can appear in different ways, shaped by context, capacity, past events and cultural traditions. We should stress that while not all initiatives reached their initial goals, all sent important signals to the wider society and contributed to discourses on sustainability and justice in relation to marginalised groups, while strengthening the resilience of local communities.

In summary, our main findings suggest:

(a)

that, within initiatives dealing with urgent struggles, the main transformation process is based on a justice-oriented narrative transmitted to the external environment, which manifests in increased community agency and self-empowerment (new leaders);

(b)

that, within project-based initiatives, the main transformative changes happen at an individual level (behavioural shifts) but, through formalised co-creation and mutual learning activities, might also contribute to achieving community-level social normative goals;

(c)

that, within traditional practices, the main transformative changes are linked to preserving cultural continuity and an adapted way of established customs through peer and intergenerational learning within the whole community (also involving its marginalised segments);

(d)

that pro-environmental initiatives seem to be particularly apt at empowering individuals excluded from formal power structures to take on (formal and informal) leadership roles, among other women or people with minority or migrant backgrounds.

4. Discussion

This article aimed to show that knowledge processes and transformative changes appear interrelated within the analysed initiatives, each shaping and being shaped by local rural realities. Knowledge appears relational, specifically situated and co-produced. It is influenced by intergenerational exchange, cultural practices and lived experiences. Transformation emerges when different forms of knowledge interact: traditional ecological knowledge, scientific expertise and experiential knowledge are differently mobilised in ways that generate collective agency [20,32].

In the analysed initiatives, this knowledge co-production appears in formal settings (e.g., projects with dedicated learning goals) or informal grassroots practices around environmental struggles (e.g., protests, storytelling). Knowledge brokerage with similar initiatives has a key role in knowledge co-production that does not only relate to technical solutions and expertise but also to processes referring to empowerment and (political or social) legitimacy. When vulnerable groups interact in (non-formal) alliances with supportive NGOs, legal experts—as in the cases of Romania and Bulgaria—or scientists, they are prepared to approach institutionalised actors and strengthen their claims [22,25]. External actors act as critical supporters in negotiation processes for the recognition and visibility of the initiatives, as well as for the advancement of their objectives. Knowledge brokerage focuses on governance challenges, opposes dominant development paths and addresses institutional neglect, particularly within urgent struggles where technical knowledge is also in focus. Knowledge brokerage on specific topics—such as legal procedures, strategic planning or resource mapping—helps many initiatives gain access to knowledge resources and contribute to capacity-building. Sharing knowledge in alliances offers perspectives, can inspire alternative solutions and contribute to new visions for sustainable future local scenarios. For instance, in the first Bulgarian case, activists processed national resource planning documents into accessible data and maps and subsequently shared them with other movements addressing similar challenges.

Transformative changes emerge as a product of a successful resistance or partial victories of struggles; in less successful initiatives, they appear as symbolic expressions of hope, continuity, community agency or empowerment. In the case of initiatives not meeting their intended goals, such as the Akbelen forest resistance in Türkiye, signals of care and solidarity continue to circulate and inspire within and beyond the local community. These signals contribute to a broader public discourse on justice, environmental accountability and legitimacy, echoing what is described as disruptive capacity or power to disrupt [29] in academic discussions.

Behavioural change is a recurring outcome. While more visible in structured project-based settings (Hungary, Portugal), it is also observable within urgent struggles and traditional practices. In project-based settings, planned educational formats and intergenerational learning have regularly led to changes in household practices. In other contexts, changes are triggered by personal reflection or external threats. Particularly among younger participants, new behaviours are shaped by learning, critical dialogue and emotional engagement as key mechanisms of transformative learning [12,23].

Leadership and empowerment emerge in parallel and interwoven, often times not through appointed roles but rather through lived practice. Many initiatives are arranged and inspired by women, youth and contributing members of marginalised groups, such as Roma communities, who become role models through active involvement in actions. On behalf of the ‘silent’ members of their community, they speak out and hold the social fabric of their specific group together during the environmental stewardship process. Their leadership revolves around caregiving for the neighbourhood and engaging with the local citizens, activating relational knowledge and perseverance—their leadership activities thus mirror patterns identified in social movement studies [31]. Particularly in neighbourhood contexts, leaders are substantial anchors for collective action and resilience, inspiring other community members and ensuring their durable engagement.

Our findings also show that transformation remains fragile for several reasons. Initiatives face structural barriers that limit capacities to act or sustain durable action or transformative change. Such barriers include economic hardship, political repression, rural neglect, lack of access to information and (administrative) actors in the analysed initiatives. In this context, transformative outcomes are related to motivation or knowledge, and to the presence (or absence) of supportive governance and enabling structures [21]. Where local administrations are aligned with business interests or remain indifferent (absent from everyday realities), the path to transformation becomes fragile.

Emotions in environmental struggles play a role particularly within urgent struggles. Emotional components are intertwined with psychosocial costs of resistance and activism. Participants in the lost forest struggle in Türkiye described trauma, repression and pointed to prolonged emotional stress. Emotional resilience, as described recently in [31], provides explanations for emotions acting as a resource for durable engagement in pro-environmental actions and maintaining hope beyond rational cognitive or behavioural decisions. This differs from emotional components in educational processes in the project-based settings. Emotions are reasons for and consequences of environmental learning as they shape (in)formal education processes and build empathy in communities on how to engage with environmental issues [33].

The role of the nomadic community highlights an additional perspective. Continuity and adaptation to a modern lifestyle describe a sustainability practice rather than a transformation, as it requests continuous efforts to keep seasonal grazing rights functional. To preserve cultural practices and traditions, the nomadic group refers to positive functions of human–land impacts on the specific ecosystem, such as biodiversity protection, water management or the protection of meadows. The challenge lies in the perseverance of traditions and culture, along with the necessary adaptations. This initiative showcases a community that strives to manage its vulnerabilities and develop visibility and resilience, e.g., with the protest march to bring the grazing rights to public attention.

5. Conclusions

This article highlights how knowledge processes in pro-environmental engagement are shaped by context, shared experiences and co-production within diverse group settings. Our study offers a context-sensitive understanding of transformation rooted in lived experience and community-based knowledge. By combining qualitative evidence with concepts such as transformative learning, knowledge co-production, and epistemic justice, the article contributes to the broader debates on bottom-up sustainability transformation processes.

Our main findings show that behavioural changes might become detached from the pro-environmental initiatives’ core objectives. Transformative change across the eleven local initiatives seems to be multidimensional, emerging through behavioural shifts, empowerment, continuity of cultural practice and signals to the wider society. Transformation is not a fixed outcome, but rather an evolving process influenced by group participation, situated knowledge, intergenerational learning and collaboration patterns within the communities and with external actors. These factors support local communities in challenging unfeasible socio-environmental developments and co-creating more sustainable future practices that are grounded in solidarity.

The analysis emphasised the active roles of vulnerable groups, such as women, Roma communities, young people, rural residents or nomadic actors. Local initiatives foster personal and collective reorientation, with changes in household practices and symbolic messages of solidarity, responsibility and care. Local initiatives reveal the emotional, political and relational dimensions of environmental stewardship as dimensions that are often underexplored in dominant sustainability transition studies.

Our interviews confirm that local pro-environmental initiatives hold essential knowledge and create agency for sustainable transformation on a broader scale. Their actions reflect enduring commitments to environmental care, social justice or cultural continuity. The commitments to urgent resistance, as well as the guided pro-environmental actions within project contexts, lead to the co-creation of locally embedded practices and narratives. Within this context, local initiatives send strong signals to society, calling for recognition and policy support, as well as a broader inclusion of grassroots actors in shaping more just and sustainable future practices.

Through the findings from our specific cases, we aimed to highlight knowledge processes and transformative changes that convey the important message that local initiatives are not peripheral to transformative change. The initiatives present visionary justice-oriented narratives that confront dominant socio-economic models and propose more inclusive, just and sustainable alternative future scenarios. The initiatives examine sustainable environmental future scenarios and create nuanced visions of hope, while also implying specific transformation paths [34], more on a global scale [35]. The broader discourse ignited on environmental justice and sustainability relates to individual change but also to changing community dynamics. The appearance of such new visions for a more sustainable future can serve as a ’beacon’ for transferability, depending on the specific environmental objectives and drawing on the key lessons from knowledge co-production; similar transformative changes can be triggered in other country settings as well.

Notwithstanding the transferability and replicability of our results, we need to acknowledge several limitations of our study. Even though our qualitative, case-based approach provides in-depth insights, the main findings might not be representative across broader contexts. Each initiative is specific from a cultural and institutional standpoint, and the comparison of the local socio-economic and environmental settings remains inherently limited. In addition, the transdisciplinary research approach, though valuable for co-interpretation, brings challenges in terms of aligning disciplinary perspectives across cases. This also entails the countries involved, as well as the cultural and language differences. Moreover, to make our research approach operationally feasible, we distinguished between two groups of stakeholders, i.e., organisers and participants, but represented the main results in an aggregated way. Such aggregation may conceal important differences, especially in how behavioural change or empowerment distinctly develops in both groups. Future research could benefit from more actor-specific or longitudinal perspectives.