COVID-19 and Well-Being in Remote Coastal Communities—A Case Study from Iceland

Abstract

This study utilizes a recently developed framework for the well-being economy to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 in the sparsely populated Westfjords region of northwestern Iceland. A total of 42 semi-structured interviews were conducted with a broad spectrum of local community members, nearly all undertaken in October 2021. Local impacts to human and social capital were very evident, whilst economic consequences to individuals and business were largely mitigated through national economic packages. The remoteness of the Westfjords and pre-existing challenges, such as exposure to nature disasters, a harsh climate, and limited infrastructure, provided a bedrock of resilience with which to tackle the pandemic. This underpinned the sustainability of the communities, and flexible approaches to work and education constrained some of the worst potential effects of social distancing and isolation. Nevertheless, some socio-demographic groups remained harder hit than others, including the elderly in nursing homes and non-Icelandic speaking foreigners, who were marginalized via isolation and lack of information provision in the early, most severe outbreaks of COVID-19. The study demonstrated the coping mechanisms and solutions that were adopted to sustain subjective and community well-being, whilst reinforcing the importance of utilizing local community strengths in tackling the many challenges induced by a pandemic crisis.

1. Introduction

In December 2022, nearly three years on from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has experienced more than 6.6 million reported deaths and 600 million infections [1]. This has led to unprecedented challenges for labor markets, food systems, and public health networks, with the economic and social disruption inducing the risk of tens of millions of people falling into extreme poverty and an additional 132 million suffering malnourishment [2]. The United Nation’s Framework for the Immediate Socio-Economic Response to the COVID-19 crisis voiced that “[t]he COVID-19 pandemic is far more than a health crisis, it is affecting societies and economies at their core. While the impact of the pandemic will vary from country to country, it will most likely increase poverty and inequalities at a global scale making achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) even more urgent” [3] (p. 5). Much of the analysis to date on the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic has been on the macro-scale, either with respect to the globe [4], to regions, such as the European Union [5], or nations [6,7], key industries [8,9], and labor markets [10,11]. Equally, the reporting of economic impacts has tended to be framed in terms of aggregates, such as data relating to contractions in GDP [12], unemployment [13,14], capital flows [15], and trade balances [16]. Notwithstanding the importance of such data, the risks and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic tend to be broader and relate to the social, cultural, environmental, community, and governance dimensions of sustainability [17,18,19].

This attention to broader aspects of sustainability was evidenced in a recent study in this journal [6], pertaining to the island nations of Greenland and Iceland, which demonstrated that the issue of systemic risk and the COVID-19 pandemic involved several significant economic aspects, including domino and spillover effects, but also environmental, social-cultural, business, ethical, health, and science/education connotations. Arctic nations such as Iceland and Greenland exemplify some of the impacts and extreme challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in such parts of the world, where extreme conditions and remoteness exacerbates risks and constrains response capacities [20,21,22]. From an economic perspective, these have included severe contractions in GDP and declines in key sectors and segments, such as tourism and cruise shipping, and disruption to important supply chains for the export of raw materials, including fish and minerals [6]. However, even in the Arctic, the analysis of impacts has tended to focus on the national scale, and community scale evaluations were recently called for by the Arctic Council’s Sustainable Development Working Group [23]. National scale analysis, both macro-economic and more sustainability focused, can often fail to pinpoint the more complex realities found in local communities concerning impacts to economic well-being and the difficulties in mitigating the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially when impacted settlements are small, rural, and/or remote [24,25].

Equally, community analysis needs to be more nuanced in its assessment of impacts and response efficacy than local economic surveys can provide [24]. This paper draws on the recently emerging well-being economy narrative, exemplified by the Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo) partnership, which facilitates analysis of not only the productive capacities of economies but also their capacity to support human well-being through the three core pillars of material living conditions, quality of life, and sustainability [26,27]. Pursuant to these three pillars are five core objectives: (1) staying within planetary boundaries; (2) meeting all fundamental human needs; (3) creating and maintaining a fair distribution of resources, income, and wealth; (4) having an efficient allocation of resources, including common natural and social capital assets; and (5) creating governance systems that are fair, responsive, just, and accountable [27]. Although to date the analytical approaches attached to the well-being economy have tended to focus on the national level through well-being economy indicators [28,29,30], a recently developed framework by [28] which utilizes a capital asset to well-being domains to SDGs approach, has the capacity to be implemented as an evaluative device at any spatial scale.

This study explores the case study of Ísafjörður (the de facto capital in the sparsely populated Westfjords region of northwestern Iceland) and nearby villages to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on remote Arctic communities and the robustness of management interventions. The region epitomizes the characteristics of many communities in the Arctic—relatively remote and resource-dependent, with only a few key industries, and rather limited connections to the rest of Iceland by road and air which are often closed during winter times due to bad weather, yet still managing to be a thriving center for culture, education, and outdoor activities. The two main research questions in this study are as follows: (1) What are the main impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to the components (capital assets, well-being domains, and SDGs) of the well-being economy? and (2) How and to what extent have policy and management interventions mitigated the identified impacts?

Section 2 of this paper provides background information concerning the case study communities and the constituent elements of the well-being economy framework that will be used to answer the first research question. Section 3 details the paper’s materials and methods, the latter based on semi-structured interviews with impacted parties in the local communities. This approach facilitated insights with respect to the answering of both research questions. Section 4 outlines a combined results and discussion, summarizing the main findings with respect to impacts to the components of the well-being economy framework and the effectiveness of policy interventions. The lessons learned and policy implications of the analysis are considered, both regarding the case study and more broadly to the Arctic and internationally. Section 5 outlines a brief conclusion and considers potential avenues for further research.

2. Case study Location and Theoretical Framework

2.1. Westfjords Region of Iceland

The Westfjords, located in the northwestern corner of Iceland and only around 300 km from Greenland, is the most sparsely populated region in the nation. In 2020, the total population was 7115, down considerably from a figure of over 10,000 in the period of 1920 to 1980 [31]. In the 1920s, the Westfjords accounted for more than 14% of the Icelandic population, but now, given the local decline (largely due to the reduced significance of locally based fisheries) and population growth in other parts of the country (especially Reykjavík), this percentage is only 1.95% [31]. Despite the overall decline in the regional population, there has been only a slight reduction (3.0%) these past two decades in the number of inhabitants in the largest town of Ísafjörður. The population of the town was 2754 in 2001 and 2672 in 2021 [31]. Over the last two decades, the gender split in Ísafjörður’s population has been fairly even, with males slightly outnumbering females after the year 2015—the current split in the town’s population is 1353 males (50.6%) and 1319 females (49.4%) [31]. As of now, 1742 (65.2%) of the 2672 residents in Ísafjörður are aged less than 65 years, which is lower than the national percentage of 85.3% [31]. Ísafjarðabær, the municipality encompassing Ísafjörður, has one of the highest proportions of foreigners of any local government authority in Iceland—in Q3 of 2021, 710 (18.4%) of the 3860 residents were of foreign citizenship [32]. Nearby to Ísafjörður are the villages and towns of Flateyri, Hnífsdalur, Þingeyri, and Bolungarvík, none of which has more than 1000 [32]. Together, these settlements form the focus of this study’s case study.

The region is mountainous with few flat areas suitable for agriculture. There are many fjords providing good harbors for fishing, shipping, and growing aquaculture and tourism industries. Proximity to abundant fishing areas means that fisheries and fish processing continue to be mainstays of the local economy, and the Westfjords are a region in Iceland most reliant on income from fisheries, fish processing, and aquaculture per capita [33]. Despite improvements made by building four tunnels, road transportation is often difficult, with many roads that are prone to closure during the winter months because of ice and snow [34]. Ísafjörður has one hospital, with a limited accident and emergency service, and an airport providing a typical service of two flights per day to and from the capital city of Reykjavík, but to no other destinations [35]. Unlike other parts of Iceland, especially the capital area and the south, apart from cruise ships, mass tourism has not yet taken hold in the Westfjords, largely due to its remoteness, inaccessibility, and lack of infrastructure such as limited accommodation facilities [36]. Tourism has grown slowly and organically, and travel companies are mostly family-run [36]. However, ongoing expansion of the harbor in Ísafjörður means that the town will be able to accommodate additional large cruise ships from the summer of 2023, potentially leading to significant growth in visitor numbers [37]. Despite the isolation and small population, Ísafjörður typically hosts a multitude of events and festivals attended by people from all over Iceland and beyond, such as the Fossavatnsgangan Ski Race, the Act Alone theatre festival, the European Championship of Swamp Soccer, and various music festivals, including ‘Aldrei fór ég suður’ (‘I never went South’) [38].

2.2. Theoretical Framework of the Well-Being Economy

Building on the three core pillars and five overarching objectives for the well-being economy [26,27], various frameworks have been developed for the purposes of its evaluation at the national scale, with the main aim to provide more nuanced information than what can be gleaned from changes to macro-economic indicators such as Gross Domestic Product [30]. New Zealand’s Living Standards Framework and associated well-being economy indicators provides a recent example of a framework and agenda that places the importance of maintaining and enhancing human well-being at the heart of government policymaking [39]. Other nations have been following suit—in September 2019, Iceland published a set of 39 well-being indicators [40], subsequently approved by the government in April 2020, and Scotland has identified the well-being economy as a national priority and one of its key strategic objectives in the recovery from the damages of the COVID-19 pandemic [41,42].

The framework of Cook and Davíðsdóttir (2021) [28] in

Table 1. A capital asset, goal and domain-based conceptualization of the well-being economy. (Sourced with permission from Cook and Davíðsdóttir (2021) [28] (p. 3)).

Capital Assets	Goal	Domain	Related SDG(s)
Natural All aspects of the natural environment that support life and human activity, including land, soil, water, plants and animals, minerals, and energy resources.	Planetary biophysical boundaries are not breached—a sustainable economy within our ecological life support system is maintained and even proactively regenerates the ecosystem, healing the harm already done.	Environment	6: Clean water and sanitation
			7: Affordable and clean energy
			11: Sustainable cities and communities
			12: Responsible consumption and production
			13: Climate action
			14: Life below water
			15: Life on land
Social The norms, rules, and institutions that influence the ways in which people live and work together and experience a sense of belonging; includes trust, reciprocity, the rule of law, cultural and community identity, traditions and customs, and common values and interests.	Fundamental human needs met—including the need to be valued and respected; social relations and self-determination; safety, security, and sense of dignity and purpose.	Civic engagement and governance	1: End poverty
			16: Peace, justice and strong institutions
			17: Partnerships for the goals
		Cultural identity	11: Sustainable cities and communities
			16: Peace, justice and strong institutions
			17: Partnerships for the goals
		Social connections	1: End poverty
			16: Peace, justice and strong institutions
			17: Partnerships for the goals
Human The capabilities and capacities of human beings to engage in work, study, recreation and social activities; includes skills, knowledge, and physical and mental health.	Human development, capacities and flourishing is supported and cultivated.	Health	1: End poverty
			2: Zero hunger
			3: Good health and well-being
		Knowledge and skills	4: Quality education
		Time use	8: Decent work and economic growth
		Subjective well-being	3: Good health and well-being
			5: Gender equality
			10: Reduced inequalities
Financial and physical Financial and man-made physical assets which support material living conditions; includes factories, roads, hospitals, houses etc.	A fair distribution of resources, income and wealth is delivered—within and between nations, and across current and future generations of humans.	Housing	9: Industrial innovation and infrastructure
			11: Sustainable cities and communities
		Income and consumption	8: Decent work and economic growth
			10: Reduced inequalities
			12: Responsible consumption and production
		Jobs and earnings	8: Decent work and economic growth

integrates the various objectives of the well-being economy by Costanza et al. (2018) [27] with the capital asset foundations and well-being domains set out by the New Zealand Treasury (2019) [39]. In Table 1 four capital assets—natural, social, human, and financial and physical—are linked to goals for each asset class, related well-being domains, and relevant SDGs. In so doing, the links between the underpinnings of the well-being economy and the UN’s 2030 vision for a sustainable and prosperous planet are fully articulated. Twelve domains of well-being are identified: civic, engagement, and governance; cultural identity; environment; health; housing; income and consumption; jobs and earnings; knowledge and skills; time use; safety and security; social connections; and subjective well-being [28,39].

3. Materials and Methods

The study was based on a qualitative inquiry, which aims to make sense of, and interpret, data in terms of meaning, relating it to the context and situation under study [43]. Qualitative methodology provides several options with regards to specific research methods, of which the interview is the most applied one, providing researchers with an opportunity to collect rich data by asking questions prepared beforehand. Furthermore, in-depth explanations can be acquired, as well as follow-up questions posed [44].

To conduct this study, a semi-structured interview framework was designed (see Appendix A), which included main and pursuant questions. This evolved iteratively through author review and piloting but was structured predominantly in accordance with the dominant themes in a report currently in press on national scale impacts of COVID-19, entitled ‘A Review of COVID-19 Public Health Restrictions, Directives, and Measures in Arctic Countries’ [23]. The research process involved five main stages: (1) design of the interview questions and framework; (2) identifying suitable interviewees; (3) conducting of the interviews and transcription of the recordings; (4) data analysis and extraction of information; and (5) discussion of the findings based on [45,46].

Regarding stage (2), purposive sampling was adopted as a tool for interviewee selection in order to maximize the likelihood of forming meaningful outcomes [47] that could answer the two research questions. This approach was facilitated by staff of the University Centre of the Westfjords, based in Ísafjörður, who used their local knowledge and connections to identify potentially suitable interviewees. They also scheduled most of the interviews. The snowball technique was also utilized, whereby an interviewee would suggest other potentially suitable interviewees.

Concerning stage (3), a total of 42 face-to-face interviews with 44 persons were conducted in the period from 4th to 8th October 2021 apart from two which occurred via Zoom shortly afterwards. The majority of the interviews occurred at the University Centre, and a few took place in homes or workplaces in Ísafjörður and the nearby villages of Flateyri, Þingeyri, Bolungarvík, and Hnífsdalur. A broad variety of local community members were interviewed. These included the health authorities and healthcare workers; governance officials, such as a town mayor; staff and students at the University Centre and kindergarten and primary school workers; and others employed locally, including in fishing, fish farming, the port authority, tourism operators, civil protection and emergency management workers, artists, and telecommuters. Most of the interviews were conducted in Icelandic. However, some also took place in English and Polish, especially when this was the interviewee’s native language. The Polish interviews involved the assistance of a translator. All interviews were recorded, translated into English (when required), and transcribed during November and December 2021.

For stage (4), thematization and analysis took place in February and March 2022. This involved the use of MAXQDA 2020 software for deductive coding purposes. In contrast to inductive coding methodologies, such as grounded theory [48], in deductive data analysis, codes are pre-determined in order to examine the key ideas of a theory on which it is based [49,50]. Thus, the theoretical framework [28] guided the selection of codes and sub-codes, especially with regard to its underlying capital assets and associated well-being domains. Overall, there were five chronological steps in the analysis: compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting, and concluding [51]. This type of thorough explanatory case study analysis helps to facilitate comprehensive evaluation of the components in a theoretical framework. Stage (5) of the research process is reported in Section 4 of this paper.

Ethical considerations in this research were undertaken in accordance with the recommendations set out in the University of Iceland’s Guidelines for Research Ethics [52]. An invitation to participate contained information about the purpose of the research, researchers, and institution that they represent, together with contact information should any questions arise. Interviewees were informed that the research results would be presented in a summarized form and all interview content would be anonymized. Informed consent was received in writing from all interviewees.

4. Results and Discussion

In the results section, the findings of the interviews are presented using the framework outlined above. Each section of the results addresses one form of capital with examples that show how the impacts of COVID-19 fall under the well-being domains associated with that form of capital. The extent to which the examples described in the results can help or hinder the ability of these communities to cultivate well-being will be addressed in the discussion section.

4.1. Natural Capital

4.1.1. Environment

In the interviews, the access and close proximity to nature in the communities was felt to have contributed to the well-being of community members during the pandemic. This is exemplified in the following quotation, which describes how outdoor recreation and access to nature were a source of well-being for community members.

But since the access to nature is really easy in Ísafjörður. So, everyday…during the softer version [of quarantine it is possible] to go out for an hour to go hiking, fishing, exploration… [it is] helpful that it is [a] short distance to nice places.

(Interviewee 26)

Negative aspects associated with the natural environment of the community, such as its vulnerability to avalanches, were also discussed but even these were sometimes presented as a source of strength for the community, as their past experiences dealing with challenging conditions that can isolate the community were viewed to increase their resilience in the face of COVID-19.

It’s flooding, it is earthquakes, volcanoes, avalanches. We are used to dealing with the natural forces. Being lost at sea, all kinds of things.

(Interviewee 37)

Additionally, the isolation afforded by the local environment was seen as a good thing in terms of infection control, as it meant fewer people coming and going into the communities.

The weather, it was protecting us from COVID because everything was shut down.

(Interviewee 15)

I mentioned earlier, the distance from the masses. It was a good thing. We are not a village located on the main highway.

(Interviewee 11)

However, this geographic isolation was also seen by some as a vulnerability, as the communities depend on their connections with the rest of Iceland, and one of those interviewed expressed concern regarding the potential for transportation to the area to be cut off, and the potential effects on the provisioning of basic services in the community.

Well, there are pros and cons to having such isolated and small settlements. So, if there is a serious pandemic, then of course the whole village can just be non-functional… the weather here is extreme and transport routes in and out of this part of the country can [also] be closed. And if it happens all at the same time, that the weather here is bad, then we are completely dependent on transportation in and out... It can be difficult if everything becomes non-functional. And especially for those in these smaller villages who may need to pick up necessities in larger settlements such as Ísafjörður. So, I would think that these local stores that may not have supplies for many days of isolation, or many days of quarantine, without getting new products in.

(Interviewee 33)

This sort of road closure described by interviewees may also disrupt the infrastructure that brings essential supplies, such as food and personal protective equipment, into the community. The interviewees mentioned the limited nature of the local health services, and the need to transport seriously ill patients to the capital area of Reykjavík, so a lack of transport may also have consequences for public health.

4.2. Social Capital

4.2.1. Civic Processes

Many of the impacts of COVID-19 articulated in the interviews were mediated through or caused by civic processes, such as decisions made by the local and national authorities to impose far-reaching public health measures. In addition to impacting the community at large, these decisions influenced the work of the officials who were responsible for making them, many of whom reported a sense of chaos in the early stages of the pandemic, as the decision-making processes were being fine-tuned, as seen in the following quote from an official working in public administration.

When you have something very organized. It starts with someone being assigned a role somewhere, like an epidemiologist. Considering some actions that then flow down the public administration and end up with the person at the desk in the local swimming pool. So, we’ve just decided on the chain of command, so to speak, so it’s kind of flowing down that way. But then all of a sudden you have an outbreak here and you are making all kinds of decisions…Completely disorganized and is not specified in any rules and completely unclear what the effect is, good or bad or what. But you just make decisions like that.

(Interviewee 1)

While the decisions being made were far-reaching and gave the civic sphere a much more visible role in the day-to-day life of community members, the interviews showed that public acceptance of the measures was high, because of a widespread consensus that they were necessary and general trust in public authorities. There was a consensus among the interviewees that decision-making in healthcare policy was similar in the smaller communities and the capital area, despite the regional differences such as the remoteness of the towns and their unique natural environments that are highlighted in Section 4.1.1.

4.2.2. Cultural Identity

Cultural identity had a role in the pandemic’s impact on the community as the background of community members—i.e., whether they were immigrant or Icelandic—contributed to their experiences of the pandemic. While children and the elderly were the most commonly identified vulnerable groups, others expressed concern that immigrants might be more vulnerable to the impacts of COVID-19 than the general population.

Perhaps the proportion of foreigners who often did not understand the rules and therefore did not follow them as much. But then things started to improve, and information began to appear in Polish and English as well. But at first it was a bit just aimed at us Icelanders. Everything in Icelandic. That way they may have been more vulnerable to this, maybe not quite understanding what was going on.

(Interviewee 20)

The interviews also articulate a sense of surprise felt by some at the beginning of the pandemic: that a community such as theirs, small, safe, and in a rich developed country like Iceland, could experience a severe outbreak.

Some death rates were published from China, and we said, well, we have a much better health care system than this. We’re never going to see death rates like this. Then comes Italy, where people died in great numbers…it was quite obvious that even though we had a Westernized health care system, things could get bad here too.

(Interviewee 9)

While this initial optimism was not born out, those interviewed generally felt that Iceland had done a better job compared to other countries, and some expressed a belief that this was in part due to the cultural uniformity of the population and the resilience of the Icelandic healthcare and social system.

No, we are more or less strong if anything, because we are used to being immobile due to weather and adapting to some external situation that cannot be changed. This is a rather homogenous society. In terms of income or social status, or access to technology or the media or something like that.

(Interviewee 9)

4.2.3. Social Connections

Social connections, namely how they were maintained or disrupted during the pandemic, were a key domain of concern for those interviewed. This was particularly true with regards to vulnerable groups within the community, such as the elderly and school age children, who were often referenced as the two groups who had the most difficult experience of the pandemic.

It was harder on [my wife] to [not] meet [a] large group of people and do things like that. But our life didn’t change much. I think it was much more dramatic for younger generations especially, and the very elderly…that was probably the most [difficult for] the people in nursing homes as they were, in effect, jailed.

(Interviewee 27)

However, while social isolation was widely observed to be a negative impact of the pandemic, that was not the case for all community members; some credited their experience of living in remote areas for enabling them to better deal with this component of the pandemic

You know I lived in rural areas, where I was really isolated for, you know, many years. So, I experienced this kind of isolation before, and it doesn’t impact me very quickly.

(Interviewee 26)

Many also felt that the small, close-knit nature of the society in these communities, enabled them to better deal with the consequences of the pandemic than larger communities. A notable example from an official working in public administration described how he was able to act quickly to implement a plan to protect the elderly.

I would say that is the big difference from being organized and structured into being the small society. Because a leader in such a small community, they can do so much more as a leader. [The mayor of Reykjavík] is not going to call anyone and say hey, can you call everyone 70 years and older in Reykjavík. It’s just a lot more complicated and it would take him a whole month to plan something like that.

(Interviewee 1)

However, this level of connection also proved to be a liability in some instances, as the tight-knit nature of the society meant that any infection had the potentially to rapidly spread through the community.

I think everybody didn’t want to get COVID then spread it…the shame of being someone who spreads it is the worst. The guilt. All the sudden you can close the whole village; it’s so quickly spreading. It’s a vulnerability.

(Interviewee 30)

These social connections proved particularly concerning for school officials at the University Center, who were worried throughout the pandemic that an outbreak among their students could lead to a larger spike in cases within the community. While there was a group infection among the students at one point, it did not spread within the community.

I noticed from the University Center that a bunch of students got COVID, and that they were doing drastic measures to make sure that it didn’t get into the community…They tried to keep them safe because it’s a small community so an outbreak…would do some harm, particularly with the nursing home being there.

(Interviewee 4)

4.3. Human Capital

4.3.1. Health

One of the first impacts of the pandemic in the case study’s settlements was the outbreak in one of the local nursing homes in March and April of 2020. This had a particularly negative impact on the residents of the care home, before and after the outbreak, as they were forced to be in isolation. It also negatively impacted those working in the nursing home, as they dealt with the uncertainty of the initial outbreak and then months of increased restrictions.

We have a nursing home and two people died in the nursing home in the first wave of infections. So, it had a huge impact. Both organizationally and response wise, because there was no plan in place of how to respond to this. No one knew what they were actually doing.

(Interviewee 1)

However, as the following excerpt shows, in the longer term, some of the changes in hygiene protocols made during the pandemic had positive impacts, such as by extending the longevity of the elderly.

I met a woman the other day who is working in the nursing home. And she was saying that they were in a bit of trouble because the residents were living longer. Because there are so many people on the waiting list. After the pandemic we have a mask mandate, there is more cleaning and people are disinfecting everything. Then there is not as much illness coming into the nursing home.

(Interviewee 3)

The positive impacts seen in the nursing home were also felt in terms of openness around mental health, as well as treatment options in the local community, which is particularly significant given the challenge of providing specialist care in remote communities.

People are…more willing to open up about the anxiety, the depression, their health difficulties and are actively seeking of help, rather that closing off and being ashamed, which has led to big steps in treatment as well. We even have good method for treating anxiety and depression that I’m certain would not have opened up without the pandemic.

(Interviewee 5)

4.3.2. Subjective Well-Being

The interviewees demonstrated considerable variety in terms of how people perceived the pandemic’s impact on their well-being and that of others. Some interviewees did not find the reduced socialization associated with the restrictions or being in quarantine or isolation difficult, whereas others found it to be very challenging.

Yes, I felt miserable in quarantine, but it lasted only for one week, and took place last month. I did not like it. I was not a good employee then and I was not a good dad either during that time. So, I don’t know. You can always find some positive things about it, but I did not like it.

For me personally if I look back and think of how I felt as far as the consequences on my social life and psychological well-being, it didn’t affect me that much, actually. We couldn’t travel, but that’s how it is.

(Interviewee 37)

Some of those interviewed also gave credit to the ruggedness of these communities, especially given the harsh weather that is common in the Westfjords, for allowing their residents to thrive under the difficult circumstances of the pandemic.

Residents [in our town] are of course tough people. You know, it takes a lot for them to crack. I mean, it’s just the weather.

(Interviewee 22)

Similar to the example quoted under the cultural identity domain, the interviews showed concern that the greater vulnerability of immigrants—in particular migrant workers—faced during the pandemic would affect their well-being in different ways that what was experienced by Icelanders.

I think it is quite certain that immigrants have been more vulnerable to this. Especially migrant workers…I think this group has been more vulnerable to the directives. Potentially because they are so economically driven in what they are doing. Must get to work. There is a completely different profile regarding mental well-being and other things.

(Interviewee 33)

Immigrants described challenges they experienced, including the strain of not being able to go to their home countries for an extended period of time.

The most negative thing was that they could not go to Poland.

(Interviewee 15)

This concern over traveling also played a part in the experience of foreigners during the vaccination program, as some felt compelled to get vaccinated without necessarily understanding how it worked. The issue of not understanding vaccination requirements was also brought up in the context of pregnant women getting vaccinated.

Another interviewee said that most information was available in English but still found it difficult to communicate via telephone with workers in the healthcare system when they had COVID-19.

When I got actual calls from the hospital…I twice spoke to someone who either did not fully understand what I was asking, or just was not able to communicate something super clearly that left me with questions, but I had no symptoms, so it was fine.

(Interviewee 12)

4.3.3. Knowledge and Skills

One of the largest professional shifts associated with the pandemic worldwide was the move to remote work, and this held true for the communities described in these interviews. Remote work is directly related to the knowledge and skills domain, as the pandemic changed the way in which individuals in these remote communities were able to put their knowledge and skills to use, in spite of being away from the capital area.

And we just see it right here, we have young people coming here who are taking their work with them…These people are coming here and working remotely…This can change the rural areas. And it’s just COVID who pushed this. It actually accelerated it, maybe it was a process that would have happened, but instead of taking 10 years, it will just take 2 years.

(Interviewee 1)

However, this transition to remote technology was not positive for everyone. In schools for example, some students thrived through distance learning and others struggled. In the interviews, parents and school officials expressed concern over the impact of long-term remote learning on the educational attainment of students.

Students were asking can we come to school? Shouldn’t we come to school? Will this be on Teams? Is this live or is this a recording? How does this all work? So, we found out in the fall that we had to step in to try to make these constant changes easier for everyone. And we found that for some students, this proved to be extremely difficult…Some people just did not handle being at home and with Teams open, working on projects and having no one to support them. So, for some it turned out to be very difficult while others flourished.

(Interviewee 6)

The elderly were also mentioned as a group that had trouble with the transition to online services—e.g., closure of bank branches in favor of shifting to online banking—as they did not have the access to IT solutions, such as online banking apps, and knowledge and skills to utilize them.

Some [services] were moved online to a larger degree…there were some that just shut down, which was extremely difficult. Not that I must go to the bank, but my clients who are older people, they do not have an online bank or stuff like that. It was a major issue for them to go to the bank. It was necessary to call, press this button etc. They just can’t do this.

(Interviewee 8)

4.3.4. Time-Usage

Time-usage during the pandemic was addressed in the interviews and was sometimes presented as one of the domains that improved over the course of the pandemic. People mentioned the positive impacts of increased togetherness with their family, as a result of all members of their household being home together, though these experiences proved challenging as well.

Value of spending time together, and how lucky we are…you appreciate it more when you see your parents or have a party…you are more grateful and need people.

(Interviewee 30)

The shift to remote work also had an impact on time usage, as it enabled people to save time that would have previously been used to traveling to Reykjavík for meetings (a journey of over 450 km which can take 5–6 h) that could now be held online.

4.4. Financial and Physical

4.4.1. Housing

Housing was a key issue for many during the pandemic, and the lack of quarantine facilities available in the area created a division between those who were able to independently quarantine within their own residences, and those who would have had to make other arrangements.

Yes, and I think this is a very prophetic statement and a lot of people here live in big houses, and you know I have a summer house and, but, you know, a lot of people don’t. And I feel like people who are less of an advantage fell through the grid in complicated situations.

(Interviewee 28)

The issue of housing proved particularly challenging for the University Center, as many of their students and staff were traveling to Ísafjörður for short periods of time when classes were in session, with the school administration overseeing the provision of accommodation for them. They did not have any surplus housing that they could make available during instances of quarantine and neither did the municipal government.

The system was way too stiff, and I don’t blame anyone for not being prepared, but I was very sad to see that there was no response and adapting to the condition. And what I find utterly disappointing is that there was no quarantine option for people here. So, if one of us got tested positive, it was up to us to sort this out.

(Interviewee 28)

4.4.2. Income and Consumption

While the pandemic was a time of struggle for many businesses, the support provided by the government enabled some companies to thrive—even in the severely hit tourist industry—by turning government funding into investments in their operations.

We cut our salary during that time, but we managed to make the biggest investment that the company has made…We were able to buy [a major piece of equipment] because of some of the money we got [from] the government we didn’t have to use to run the business. We put it into a special account and managed to persuade the bank to come up with the rest. When tourism started, we were ready to rock, and had the best season since the beginning.

(Interviewee 37)

However, this investment was accompanied by a cut in salary, which was a common measure that companies took to reduce the number of employees they had to let go. Such measures were seen by some as successful, but as is discussed further in the next domain, for those whose wages were getting cut, the transition was often difficult. Furthermore, while some companies were successful in riding out the crisis, some of those interviewed observed that support was contingent upon professions and described how those whose source of income fell outside of the key economic areas, such as tourism, sports, and culture, that were well placed to receive government assistance, did not receive equal support.

(O)f course people prioritize the economy and protect the homes and such, but at the same time you have people who may have employment from these culture and leisure activities…Players and coaches in sports. Musicians. These are people who have been fighting to survive during this pandemic because they have not quite had the resources they need.

(Interviewee 33)

Government support was not the only way that businesses and individuals adapted to the changing conditions. As discussed in the earlier example of an increase to electronic banking services, many businesses in one of the towns diversified their business models to accommodate changing consumption patterns.

Now, the company where I’m working did no delivery service pre-pandemic and now has expanded to do delivery and online orders. So, they’re able to diversify their business model a little bit.

(Interviewee 12)

This was also seen in a local fish processing company in one of the towns, which was able to successfully shift their production in concert with shifting demand; an example of this being their successful pivot away from selling their product to local restaurants, that were no longer operating, to selling in local grocery stores.

We succeeded, and the fishing companies managed to adapt very quickly. It just stopped for two weeks and then when it started again it had changed the packaging, changed the products that were being processed, and just got going again.

(Interviewee 1)

4.4.3. Jobs and Earnings

As discussed above for income and consumption, there was a range in experiences regarding the extent to which employees’ jobs and wages were disrupted by the pandemic. Those who worked in core operations, such as in fisheries, hospitals, and kindergartens, and more white-collar roles, such as public administration, were largely able to keep their jobs and move to remote work without losing much income.

Among other things, because I am a government employee and have continued to receive my salary, I do not suffer a loss of income as many in the private market have done.

(Interviewee 9)

Those who were in service jobs, particularly those which were customer-facing or depended on outside visitors, did not always fare as well, despite the government support schemes referenced above.

I did not open the business last year, but I had made everything ready and such. And I was not entitled to unemployment benefits and I kind of fell in between the system. I was not really entitled to anything. So, it was a bit hard.

(Interviewee 23)

Instances where employees did not lose their jobs entirely but rather took a pay cut or reduced their hours also proved challenging.

It was a huge reduction in our income. I had to go to a 50% job, from 100% down to 50% when I start working. My husband had a severe reduction in income, which we are still actually working through.

(Interviewee 20)

4.5. Sustainability Impacts

As noted above and in the academic literature [17,18,19,24,25], many aspects of well-being are interconnected, and as such so are their relations to the SDGs. One major topic for sustainable development in Arctic communities is SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, which corresponds to the natural, social, and financial/physical capital assets categories in the well-being economy framework [28] (Table 1). As is highlighted in this case study and others, there are trade-offs, with many of the aspects that make rural communities sustainable with respect to one component of well-being, causing negative impacts on other components of well-being [17,18]. The remoteness of the Westfjords’ communities during the pandemic meant that social distancing was sometimes easier and there was more direct access to nature and other open public spaces for recreation. This same remoteness, however, can also be a barrier to fast response times in healthcare emergencies where patients need to be transported to the central hospital in the capital area [53].

Furthermore, the sometimes harsh and unpredictable Arctic weather can create compounding effects for remote communities when transportation of consumer goods, export products, and passengers is interrupted [6]. SDG targets 11.2, 11.5, and 11.9 are all focused on transport systems and the reduction of risk related to natural disasters. The findings from this study show how the cultural identity domain of social capital and the positive well-being benefits related to being “closer to nature” can be strong in Arctic communities, but there are also well-being trade-offs related to transportation sustainability, an issue that has been observed in analyses focused on other locations around the world [10,11,14,16]. This issue particularly affected foreigners in the case study locations, who at times did not know when it would next be possible to visit their homelands.

Similarly, fulfilment of SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, which touches on all three sub-categories of the social aspects of well-being, can contribute highly to the well-being economy in rural communities. As noted in the results, the town officials could personally call every elderly at-risk resident to provide information about the pandemic’s risks and regulations, increasing the domains of civic engagement using social connections. At the same time, social connections became divided to some extent, as interviewees observed a difference in pandemic impacts among ethnic and language groups. As both Icelandic and non-Icelandic interviewees noted, information flow regarding not only gathering restrictions but also vaccination availability and general health recommendations was not always provided in other languages during the early phases of the pandemic. Targets 16.7 and 16.A relate to inclusive decision-making and public access to information, a key aspect of the fair governance objective of the well-being economy [27,28] and the findings of this case study have shown how sustainability aspects of the well-being economy can differ within Arctic communities by demographic variables such as ethnicity and language.

Finally, a key component of sustainability in rural Arctic communities is SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, as these communities tend to be resource-dependent and lack a large variety of workplaces or industries. As the pandemic forced some industries to reduce operations and lay off workers, other industries were short-staffed and beyond capacity. This seemingly rapid transition in human resources management is discussed in more detail in other studies [53] but has clear impacts on the well-being objectives linked to human and financial capital [27,28]. A good example in this case study is the connection between how the pandemic impacted knowledge and skills as a result of its broader economic impacts, many of which became particularly apparent with changes to how employers managed their employees, which included more flexible arrangements such as working from home. In addition, and tied to SDG4: Quality Education, the local university center embraced a different modus operandi, with much greater emphasis on distance learning when restrictions were at their most stringent. This flexible approach helped to fulfil the well-being economy’s objectives for human capital [26,27,28].

4.6. Mitigative Efforts of Management and Policy Interventions

One national mitigative effort in Iceland was direct financial assistance to tourism and hospitality companies affected by reduced operations during the pandemic. This assistance came about through a civic process but had a material financial impact on community members. A broad array of financial support mechanisms was available to businesses, including income loss subsidies, resilience subsidies, closure subsidies, and hiring grants [6,54]. In this instance, it could be said that rural areas of the Westfjords felt the same shock to economic well-being as tourism and hospitality companies in the capital and received the same support packages [6]. The pandemic affected these industries equally because of the near total cessation of travel to Iceland [6]. Therefore, the mitigative effort was not specifically directed at smaller operators or communities.

There is a different outcome in relation to quarantine and isolation housing. The government’s decision to not provide centralized and official quarantine accommodation options outside of the capital area meant that there was a direct impact to well-being for those living outside the capital, such as the case study’s settlements, who had to spend extra social and financial capital to make quarantine arrangements for housing and food deliveries. This was despite national level support packages that were available to all qualifying individuals, including temporary increases in unemployment benefits, child benefit supplements, payment of a proportion of wage costs during notice periods, payment of a proportion of wages during quarantine, and VAT refunds for home improvement and construction activities on dwellings [6,54]. Equally, the imposition of gathering limits on a nationwide basis by the Icelandic Government was sometimes viewed by the interviewees as an inflexible and excessive policy mechanism, with at times only up to ten people allowed to meet in the case study locations despite zero COVID-19 infections in these communities.

Despite some shortcomings initially in terms of information communication about COVID-19 regulations to non-Icelandic speaking foreigners, it was recognized by the interviewees that over time the situation improved, with the covid.is portal updated daily in eleven languages. In addition, changes to regulations were communicated daily online and TV by politicians and a trio of experts, comprised of Iceland’s chief epidemiologist, the director of health, and the national director of emergency management. Thus, the governance objective of the well-being economy, requiring systems to be fair, responsive and accountable [27] could be said to have been met, albeit with some local constraints on responsiveness due to the one-size-fits all approach to gathering restrictions at certain points.

4.7. Utility of the Framework and Broader Implications for the Arctic and Beyond

The well-being economy framework (Table 1) can be a useful tool for exploring how extreme system shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, correspond to articulate impacts on personal, community, and societal well-being, and related consequences for sustainability. Although this study focused on the case study of communities in the Westfjords in northwestern Iceland, some aspects of the findings can be generalizable across the Arctic and beyond. As noted previously, many aspects of Arctic communities can be both hindrances and keys to well-being and sustainability depending on socio-demographic circumstances. For example, throughout the interviews, factors relating to social capital were frequently discussed. This included social connections on an individual level, larger cultural issues, as well as the role of civic processes, in how the pandemic was experienced. Interviewees often relayed their experience of other aspects of the pandemic, such as its impacts on the healthcare system and local schools, through a lens which foregrounded the importance of social connections within the community. Since the formation of social capital is one of the key objectives of the well-being economy [27,28], this is an interesting area for future research regarding the sometimes-oversimplified representation of communities as homogeneous societies [35,55]. Social structures related to class, ethnicity, gender, and age are ever-changing, in the Arctic and beyond [56,57]. More research is needed on multi-ethnic small societies. For example, in the Westfjords case study, even within the “immigrant” group, there were different experiences and well-being implications that were reported based on place of work during the pandemic.

Despite likely commonalities to other remote coastal communities in the Arctic, other aspects of the findings were place specific. For instance, few Arctic communities of the small scale of Ísafjörður have university centers. Nearly all of the students are foreigners and were forced to handle the isolating challenges of the pandemic at the same as becoming accustomed to the everyday challenges of living in a remote coastal community on the edge of the Arctic. On the other hand, not all regions of the Arctic have become as familiar as those in the Westfjords with having to address the consequences of natural disasters, such as avalanches, in recent decades [58], which appear to have emboldened individuals and households with additional inbuilt resilience and coping capacities as the COVID-19 pandemic advanced. The positive attributes of coping in the Westfjords case study echo some of the findings of psychological research on individual and community well-being during the pandemic, which found that resilience was grounded in the capacity of individuals and communities to sustain physical and economic needs, and use of problem-solving, reappraisal and mutual encouragement (part of social capital) as the infections and regulations changed [27,59], as well as opportunities to exercise and frequent the outdoors [60]. Such features and characteristics may also help to cultivate resilience in Arctic coastal communities to other threats with systemic consequences, such as the accelerating impacts of climate change.

5. Conclusions

The well-being economy lens explored in this paper provided a broad framework for exploring the real-world impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on a local scale in the Westfjords in northwestern Iceland, inclusive of outcomes relating to the sustainability of the economy, health, education, the environment, and communities. In terms of impacts to its capital assets foundations, the consequences most commonly described in the interviews related to human and social capital. There was an urgent need for additional workers in the local nursing homes in the early stages of the pandemic, which led to lengthy periods of isolation for the residents as national restrictions were imposed, negatively affecting the well-being domain of social connections. The absence of a local quarantine hotel also led to greater strain being placed on the well-being domain of housing, which was already in limited supply in the area.

Despite these challenges, the interviews revealed that the resilience of the communities was strong, ballasted in no small part by previous experiences of natural disasters in the area and the complexities of living in remote, isolated settlements with often harsh weather and limited transportation options. Several sustainability implications of the pandemic were evident, including connotations for SDGs 4, 8, 11, and 16. The economic impacts were largely mitigated through flexible working arrangements at the local level and generous national economic support packages to individuals and business. Evidence was found of inequities in the capacity of non-Icelandic speaking foreigners to access information about the pandemic in its early stages, and the diversity of immigrant experiences in this case study and other Arctic communities is an area deserving of further research. These findings highlight the important implications for future decision-making from local to regional to national levels. Management of companies and institutions at the local level can build on the COVID-19 experience to continue to increase flexibility (see [53] for more details). Similarly, national policies related to multicultural inclusion and information flow can continue to improve related to the findings of this study.

Finally, an important theoretical implication in this framework rests in identification and definition of the sources of barriers to well-being. Many of the seemingly physical and structural constraints affecting the well-being of residents of Arctic communities can also be considered man-made situations, based on policy decisions and priorities at national levels. The fifth core principle of the well-being economy narrative highlights the need to create governance systems that are fair, responsive, just, and accountable. While Arctic communities are characterized by long transportation distances, harsh weather, and a reduced diversity of income generation options, the decisions to de-fund transportation options, road works, snow clearing, and infrastructure investments are reflective of larger regional and national trends to centralize services. These nation-scale governance decisions can result in compounding effects to well-being during times of crisis, as this case study on COVID-19 impacts has shown.