6.1 Overall findings
Several significant overarching findings have emerged from our collective results, which are further reinforced by the individual findings presented in the preceding chapters. These comprehensive findings hold substantial importance because they were observed across a diverse range of locations and in different chapters, addressing a variety of themes in specific contexts. The central finding was that the residents of Nordic Atlantic local communities generally express a strong sense of belonging to their local community. However, this is not because they belong and relate to only a territorialized community with common values. Instead, people feel they are part of an open local community, in which people do not need to share values, culture, or identity, but they do share a relationship to a specific place. Places are thus shared, while people in many ways use and value them from different perspectives. Their places are the same, but not their place-values. While valuing specific places (e.g. Nanortalik in Greenland), people also belong and relate to wider communities, such as the larger municipal commune (e.g. Fjallabygð in Iceland), the wider region (e.g. Helgeland in Norway or Suðuroy in the Faroes), and nation. Despite this, the specific place, visible and reachable from the house where people live or stay sometimes, has a central role.
The other general finding was that people tended to experience a feeling of being ‘in control.’ While some individuals expressed dissatisfaction with certain aspects of their lives, such as municipal amalgamation or certain services, the majority of people we encountered expressed their opinions from a standpoint of resilience and adaptability. Despite experiencing marginalization and feelings of neglect or exclusion, people generally exhibited a forward-thinking perspective, contemplating future actions that could be taken. However, this did not translate to a feeling of certainty or security. On the contrary, residents in Nordic Atlantic coastal communities know they live in vulnerable circumstances, but they are used to handling uncertainty. Climate change is a reality, and storms, avalanches, and other extreme weather events can occur. Additionally, social conditions such as schools, services, and jobs may change.
These general observations indicated a certain level of resilience (Bærenholdt & Hovgaard, 2022b). As explained in previous chapters, the resilience of local communities can result from the diversification of the economy, where the multiplicity of value chains involved and the pluriactivity of local people produces a certain level of robustness and ability to cope with social and environmental challenges, simply because there is the possibility to shift between involvement in various value chains. However, even a diversified local community typically does not have much control over the value chains which the various actors in the local community depend on. If the decision-making power regarding these value chains is delocalized, it can have a detrimental impact on the resilience of the local community.
There is often a feeling among residents that decisions taken at a distance from the local community lead to less resilience. This is clearly what the cases of municipal amalgamation in Greenland and Iceland indicated, although the degree of centralization and the distance between local communities differed. The distances and infrastructural hindrances were much larger in Kujalleq municipality (Greenland) than in Fjallabygð municipality (Iceland). Fjallabygð municipality is internally connected by a tunnel, making it possible to operate a school for different age groups in just one location, and for children to return home after school. This is not possible in Kujalleq, where operating a school in one place would involve moving children to colleges when they reach a certain age. This would likely weaken the social aspects of local community resilience.
Alternatively, public sector decisions made at higher national levels can contribute significantly to diversification from above (Bærenholdt & Hovgaard, 2022b). The impact of top-down decisions on resilience varies greatly depending on the specific nature of the decision, its context, and the extent to which it can be influenced from below. For example, this includes planning decisions regarding resource management systems, schools, health care, and tunnels or other infrastructure. Therefore, delocalization can be problematic, but in general it is important for local communities in the Nordic Atlantic to be part of wider societies taking responsibility for their territories. Although some of the cases in this report are literally island communities, local communities are in general not ‘societal islands,’ and there are few benefits for local communities in being isolated. For residents, and especially young people, connectivity and the possibility to act beyond the local community is essential.
The larger problem is that of environmental resilience. Many of the businesses that are central to local labour markets have large environmental footprints. This is particularly the case for some of the intensive marine businesses, such as aquaculture in the Faroes and Norway and pelagic fisheries in the Faroes, but few of these problems are only local issues. They are issues of the environmental sustainability of larger systems and societal resource management, which also includes the environmental consequences of domestic and international mobilities, including tourism based on fossil fuel consumption. This is not something we considered in great detail, but it is unfortunate that larger, up to planetary, scale problems are sometimes regarded as less relevant for the local community, despite the contribution of local activities to these problems. This is an issue that requires further research.
6.2 Open local communities sharing places with new neighbours
The coastal local communities studied in this report were characterized by their openness and tended to exhibit cultural and economic diversity rather than homogeneity. Unlike communities where people predominantly share values, traditions, and habits, coastal communities were found to be becoming increasingly culturally diverse, with more variations in their economic activities. However, the degree of cultural diversity and economic diversification differed among the local communities studied. This was related to the infrastructural connectivity and the capacity for public investment, with significant differences between the more isolated Nanortalik (Greenland) and the cases in Iceland and Norway. Comparing two other communities in Iceland, Kokorsch and Benediktsson (2018, p. 109) found their resilience to be very different. The cases characterized by diversification, improved connectivity, and stronger social ties exhibited higher levels of resilience. It was obvious that infrastructural connection was one of the most significant place characteristics and was central to resilience. Infrastructural connections, including ferries, tunnels, and the reliability of schedules, was therefore a central theme in all cases studied. Because infrastructure is essential to economic diversification, it remains a central resilience factor and requires political attention. Furthermore, infrastructure plays a crucial role in attracting people and facilitating social interactions.
These issues are related to the other central resilience factor, which is place attachment or the ‘people-place relationship’ (Amundsen, 2012, 2015; McElduff & Ritchie, 2017), as discussed above in the general findings. People relate to places in different ways, but it is the attachment to and valuing of places that makes local communities. The sense of place is more important than being a cultural community. Although people value their places differently, it is essential that they value and share the same place. People’s engagement in and care for a place, is based on their attachment to the place (Amundsen, 2015, p. 258). This should not lead to complacency (Amundsen, 2012); place attachment or sense of belonging alone is thus not sufficient to achieving resilience, with diversity also needed. It is, however, the sense of belonging that makes people engage in associations, projects, events, and mobilizations.
As shown in chapter 1, coastal communities comprise more than just the traditional residents. We saw in Table 1.1 (Chapter 1) that, with the exception of the Greenlandic local communities, all local communities experienced continuous growth in the proportion of migrants within their populations from 2000 to 2023. This development was related to demand for labour in fish processing, aquaculture, and tourism, where jobs are not always attractive to locals. Additionally, there is a demand for highly qualified labour in the public sector that has added to the cultural diversity of local communities.
The other significant group were second homers that reuse, inherit, buy, or construct second homes, either in former family houses that have now become ‘empty houses’ (as they are called in the Faroes), or cabins that are built for second homing and other forms of tourism. Second homes accounted for a large proportion of the houses in several of the studied local communities (around 30% in the Faroes cases, 20% in Icelandic Fjallabyggd, and 40-50% in the two Norwegian cases, with substantial growth since 2000). This has profound consequences for the material aspects of the place, particularly with regards to houses that may be renovated and maintained, but are often ‘empty.’ It also means that at certain times, a new population group that is not counted in statistics is present, practicing ‘vicarious habitation,’ i.e. part-time living in local communities ‘on behalf of others’ and being accepted (Knudsen, 2018, p. 281). Some of them are just repeat tourists, but others are strongly related to the place through family and economic activities, e.g. continuing to keep sheep on the land of the local community (as in the Faroes).
These two types of ‘new neighbors’ may contribute significantly to the economic, social, and cultural life of local communities, which are otherwise ageing. Their contribution to community life and resilience may become decisive, but this will depend on how people cope with the growing diversity of the place-based ‘open community.’ Having outlined some of our main findings, we will now discuss some policy implications of these findings. Because the focus of this study was not policies and their implications, we will only mention some important implications based on our investigations.
6.3 Policy implications for ‘new’ and ‘old’ people
Attracted by either jobs or second homes, the populations living or staying in coastal communities have diversified. Migrant workers make a considerable (more than 10%) contribution to the population in many coastal communities, but the extent to which they feel welcome and at home, and therefore wish to stay, remains uncertain (Aure et al., 2018). Workplaces often do not effectively integrate migrant workers. Likewise, second homers are often seen as people from other places, and their way into becoming a part of the local community can be difficult and troublesome. Their shorter stays in the local area can make it harder to establish long-lasting relationships and actively engage with the community. However, especially senior second homers increasingly spend extended periods of time in their second homes. There are important policy outcomes that can be implemented on a bottom-up basis to support locals and municipalities. ‘Newcomers’ and ‘often-comers’ may bring resources and capacities to open networks and funding possibilities, which can be activated if they take part in just a few local meetings and become members of neighborhood associations. This can be facilitated at the municipal level through supporting/providing meeting facilities and community/citizen houses. Sometimes there will be a need to actively invite people. Much can be achieved just from meeting, welcoming, and inviting people to everyday activities. Specific events can be organized to mobilize people, for example to welcome, guide, sing and cater for tourists from a visiting cruise ship in Nanortalik (Greenland).
For the growing share of senior people already living in the community, these initiatives could provide new avenues for social interaction that are also related to cultural events or training. It is important that all such ‘policies from below’ refer to the common place as the point of reference, and they should not come from particular cultural, religious, or other groups. The place is the common reference.
6.4 Policy implications for diversification
Municipalities are often associated with local economic development policies, but it is critical to assess if smaller municipalities have such a capacity. It is possible that some of the larger, amalgamated, municipalities are better equipped to attract the new economic activities that encourage diversification. However, size may not be the decisive factor. Studies from Norway have shown that many smaller municipalities have the capacity to establish local economic development policies, where factors such as attractiveness, the ability to mobilize locally, and various forms of internal and external engagement play important roles (Aarsæther et al., 2020).
Business development work requires a mindset focused on exploring new markets, organizations, connections, and possibilities, that go beyond traditional approaches. Value-chain thinking helps because it recognizes the importance of external linkages. In many cases, the attraction and quality of the place are also advantageous factors. The return of an entrepreneurial local investor is not always possible, although we did observe some examples of this. However, many people who share a common place of origin but are living in other places can still be mobilized for the place of origin, which can be instrumental to network, raise capital, and reach markets. The same is true for the migrants and second homers mentioned above. The capacity required to manage diversification includes a complex range of institutional arrangements, but it is also based on the construction of appropriate and sustainable infrastructure. This requires business and political entrepreneurship. Tunnels and ferries with appropriate schedules for locals and non-locals is also a political matter, requiring political representation and participation in regional (in Norway) and national government.
However, diversification of the local economy does not automatically produce local community resilience. If the drivers of the value chains in the diversified local economy are beyond local control and engagement, there is a risk of disempowering local economic actors who can make decisions in favor of the community. This was already the case in some of the main pillars of the ‘blue economy,’ which is crucial for several of the local communities investigated in this study. The involvement and entrepreneurship of people locally is therefore central to the diversification of the local economy.
6.5 Planning for nature, tourism, housing, and multiple uses
The diversification of the economies of coastal local communities already involves some small-scale tourism activity, and in some places like Vega (Norway) and Siglufjörður (Iceland) tourism has already become ‘more than small’. Nature is the main tourist attraction, which raises difficult questions about sustainability, carrying capacity, and crowding in relation to access to nature. In the Faroes, the historic sheep farming system involves a complex fencing arrangement, which is not inviting for tourists, and there have also been issues about payment for access to nature (i.e. access to the outfields that are the commons of the local sheep farmers). Regulation of access, and therefore also potentially of tourist capacity, to avoid over-tourism are on the agenda. A diversified local community where different people live and interact requires careful regulation and planning measures. It also raises important issues about walking routes for the public authorities to engage in. This requires cooperation between authorities, large-scale tourism providers, and the often locally based small tourism providers. In their case study from the North Cape in Norway, Viken & Aarsæther (2012: 39) argue that large- and small-scale tourism providers can collaborate and contribute to the diversification and successful development of the industry, while also respecting important public governance regulations.
The most challenging issue for planning is housing. The situation is different in Greenland where there is no private ownership of land, and we did not consider second homes in Greenland in this study. In the three other countries (six local communities), the proportion of houses used or sold for second homes, some of which are for rent via platforms has grown significantly. In some areas this means increasing prices, making it hard for young people to find a place to live. Norway was the only country that had the potential to introduce a residency requirement for some houses, but this policy instrument was no longer used in the studied communities. For comparison, in some Danish cases (Bornholm), a residency requirement is maintained in towns, but not outside of towns. There are planning measures needed, which will also depend on national policies regulating and planning housing and tourism. There is clearly a need to find new ways of regulating housing markets, which consider the local needs for a core of permanent residents and more mobile non-permanent residents‚ who tend to undertake remote digital work. Both groups value the specific place, although only some of them have their formal address in the place.
The analysis of local community development in this study, which highlighted resilience through the valuing of place and diversification, indicated the need to develop effective planning and planning tools to develop places and secure their multiple uses by many important and different stakeholders.
6.6 Vulnerability and the climate crisis?
This study specifically examined the social resilience of coastal local communities but did also consider environmental resilience issues in relation to the use of resources and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport activities that are crucial to coastal local communities in the Nordic Atlantic (Bærenholdt & Hovgaard, 2022a). It is therefore important to stress that the open coastal communities examined in this study were environmentally vulnerable in several ways. First, they may be directly affected by extreme weather events and therefore need to adapt to climate change, as observed in the Greenlandic cases. Studies of local communities have often tried to address these issues, without giving much detailed consideration to adaptation issues, because climate change does not seem to have motivated much adaptative behavior yet (Amundsen, 2015). The impression is that people in coastal communities ‘are used’ to extreme situations and vulnerability. Second, there are issues around the sustainability of the ‘blue economy,’ which are prominent especially in the world-leading Norwegian aquaculture industry, and they also impact the coastal zone management systems discussed in the Norwegian chapter. There are several regulatory and planning measures needed to secure the environmental sustainability of marine production, and this is especially the case in locations where there may be conflicting interests, for example between aquaculture and tourism as identified in the case of Vega (Norway). It will therefore be essential to establish policies that regulate and plan the global, national, and local aspects of sustainability. This is also needed within tourism. The third concern is the large and seemingly unmanageable issue of the much-needed mitigation of the accelerating global climate crisis. We have stressed the role of infrastructure and mobility for the development of a diversified economy, but it is not easy to reduce the carbon footprint of many of the transport technologies central to the livelihood of relatively remote coastal communities. In some cases, to meet global objectives it might be better for global warming to reduce the local carbon footprint by restricting access to some areas (such as in Vega in Norway or Nanortalik in Greenland). This depends on the available technologies and energy systems (electricity). These issues may lead to a critical assessment of the growth ideals that are inherent in much regional and local development thinking. It is possible that the contracting population and economy of coastal peripheries are more resilient than other locations in relation to the climate crisis. It may also be the more diverse traditions of self-employment and a combined household economy, together with modern digital work opportunities, that make coastal communities a sustainable alternative. We may rethink whether it is right to look at the gradual loss of permanent residents in many coastal communities as a negative trend. To mitigate the climate crisis, depopulation is probably required, but it is difficult and irrational to think of ‘giving up’ as a contribution to a future life within planetary boundaries. However, the policy implication of this existential consideration is not ‘do nothing,’ but rather to carefully think about what is really needed when taking the climate crisis and other planetary concerns seriously. It should be remembered that it is not only coastal local communities that are vulnerable to such issues.