No. 0203 ...Back Movers and in Movers. Nilsson, PÅ

SELASETUR REPORT NO. 0203

Back movers and in movers

A study of back migration flows into small societies over time

by Per Åke Nilssona Sigurður Arnasonb Guðrun Helgadóttirc Dennis Holmd

a The Icelandic Sealcenter b The Icelandic Regional Development Institute c Holar University College d The Research Centre for Social Development, Faroe Islands

Photo: Lena Wikström

PREFACE

The background for this project is the ongoing depopulation of peripheral Arctic regions. Measures have over the years been undertaken to stop that process and this project tries to shed light on a part of these undertakings by putting focus on a special target group: people who have left the area and then moved back. The motives for these back movers may be of interest for future actions and for counteracting the demographic problem.

Holar University College [Háskólinn á Hólum] in Iceland has been responsible for the project process and The Icelandic Regional Development Institute [Byggdastofnun] has provided statistics for the Icelandic destinations. The Research Centre for Social Development [Granskingardepilin fyri samfelagsmenning] in Faroe Islands has administrated interviews in the Faroe Islands and has also taken part in the design process of the project. The Icelandic Seal Centre [Selasetur Íslands] has administrated the project and been responsible for interviews in Iceland. The municipality of Kvænangen in Norway has organized interviews there.

Interviews have been made by Kolbrún Reynisdóttir, Holar, and Christine Iversen, Kvænangen

The project has been financed by NORA [Nordiskt Atlantsamarbejde], Faroe Islands.

Guðrun Helgadóttir Per Åke Nilsson Project coordinator Project leader

BACKGROUND 6 Demographic challenges in peripheral North Atlantic 6 Theory review 7 Method 9 RESULTS 11 Type of households 11 1. Household structure 11 2. Age of the interviewed 12 3. Size of the households 12 Demography 14 1. Age when moving out 14 2. Age when moving back 14 3. Years staying away 15 4. Moving back year 16 Motives for moving out 17 1. Push factors 17 2. Pull factors 18 Chosen destinations 20 1. First choice 20 2. Additional choice 20 Motives for moving back 22 1. Pull factors 22 2. Push factors 23 Circumstances after moving back 25 1. Environmental circumstances 25 2. Social circumstances 26 3. Economic circumstances 27 4. Occupation 28 Household structure differences in general 29 Household structure differences after type of household 31 1. BB households 31 2. BI households 32 3. IB households 33 4. Bf and Bm households 34 CONCLUSIONS 36 Moving away 36 Moving back 36 Partners 37 The present situation 37 DISCUSSION 38 Implications on life cycles 38 Models for encountering depopulation of the Arctic periphery 39 References 41 Appendix I Questionaire 43 Appendix II Household structure after destination 44 Appendix III Short description of Iceland 47

Appendix IV Short description of Kvænangen 52 Appendix V Short description of Faroe Islands 54

Fig. 1. Migration: Push factors 7 Fig. 2. Migration: Push factors 8 Fig. 3. Number of interviews related to investigated destinations 10 Fig. 4. Household structure when interviewed 11 Fig. 5. Age of interviewed 12 Fig. 6. Size of household 13 Fig. 7. Age when moving out 14 Fig. 8. Moving back age 14 Fig. 9. Stay away years 15 Fig. 10. Moving back year 16 Fig. 11. Push factors, moving out 17 Fig. 12. Pull factors, moving out 18 Fig. 13. First choice 20 Fig. 14. Chosen places, additional choice 21 Fig. 15. Pull factors, moving back 22 Fig. 16. Push factors, moving back 23 Fig. 17. Views on environment 24 Fig. 18. Views on social circumstances 25 Fig. 19. Satisfaction with economic circumstances 26 Fig. 20. Occupation situation 27 Fig. 21. Type of households 29 Fig. 22. Matrix over answers, household-wise 29 Fig. 23. BB-household after destinations 31 Fig. 24. BI-households after destination 32 Fig. 25. IB-households after destination 33 Fig. 26. Bf/Bm-households after destination 34 Fig. 27. Matrix over answers households-wise, Iceland 44 Fig. 43. Matrix over answers households-wise,Norway 45 Fig. 44. Matrix over answers households-wise, Faroe Islands 46

BACKGROUND

DEMOGRAPHIC CHALLENGES IN THE PERIPHERAL NORTH ATLANTIC In the Nordic context, the depopulation of peripheral regions has been going on since World War II. A lot of research and incentives have been carried through but nothing has had profound effects to stop the depopulation. EU has for decades put it on its agenda (LEADER 1997; EG 1698/2005) and national parliaments have taken steps for a change (Lindquist 2010). Especially the North Atlantic region has had a negative forecast. The islands in the North Atlantic are among the more threatened places (Baldacchino 2008), in Canada the Maritime Provinces are predicted to go from increase to decrease (Lindström & Nilsson 1996; Palmer 2003) and in the Nordic countries the EU enlargement has put a new dimension into the problem (Edvardsson et al 2007).

In the 1950s, theories on development appeared more frequently, based either on inevitable reversel forces from periphery to centre (Myrdal 1957) or on bottom-up initiatives for endogenous development in a community. Brox (1969) saw the traditional society in Northern Norway, with a diversified and sustainable rural-based labour market, break down into pieces and be replaced by a unified, disciplined and anti-human industrial urban-based society. Prigogine & Nicolis (1989) on the other hand coined the concept of chaos theory from their natural science perspective, unfolding biological mechanisms showing almost deterministic development scenarios.

All these often contradictory theories confused the development research discourse and probably decreased the possibility for politicians to solve the depopulation problems, a development that was underpinned by the inherent unmanageability of the society (Carlsson 1993; Erkki 2005) and an uncertainty of what to learn from the theories (Karlsson et al. 2009).

An attempt to avoid such conflicts between general and national interests on one side and separatism and special interests on another is the elaboration of triple helix models, where academy, public authorities and private companies work together. The aim of the model is to give tools to increase the possibility to find a navigable way to tackle development problems, like how to counteract a non-desired depopulation of peripheral regions (Leydesdorff 2005; Granquist et al. 2010).

A specific demographic threat for the Nordic region is the out-migration of young people. Communities in the North often have a high fertility rate resulting in a young population. In many cases, this is regarded as a demographic prosperity. But if it is connected with lack of higher education and professional skill, it is not always favourable for the communities (Gløersen 2009). Bukve (2008) finds, that young people leave peripheral areas in Northern Norway even if job are available there, which shows a “mismatch between the young peoples’ education and job preferences and the type of jobs that are offered in the

peripheries” (p. 5). Since a lot of the women have left for urban jobs, a gender imbalance develops which may foster a remaining macho culture relying on conservative gender roles(Nilsson 1998; Hall et al. 2003).

THEORY REVIEW As mentioned, contradictory economic theories have dominated the debate on the question why people move from one part of a country to another part or abroad (Edvardsson et al. 2007; Jennissen 2007).

One type of these theories - Neoclassic Macroeconomic Theory, Neoclassic Microeconomic Theory – stresses the push factors and the initiation approaches. Another type - Theory of the dual labour market and segmented market theories - stresses the pull factors and continuations of migration.

The Neoclassic Macroeconomic Theory is based on a labour intensive sector or/and a sector with high level of technology and capital intensive production. Each sector is assumed to strive for a state of equilibrium. To achieve that equilibrium, labour is transferred from less productive sectors to more productive sectors. This requires a closed economic system and access to unlimited labour supply. An influx of cheap labour from abroad will lower wages and create a new equilibrium where external immigration will cease (Athukorola & Manning 1999). National politics and policies either facilitate or halt these movements (Adey 2010). Work is here the main motive for out migration as a push factor.

Fig.1. Migration: Push factors

Photo: Lena Wikström

The Neoclassic Microeconomic Theory is based on individual choice where the individuals are rational and fully informed. They want to live where they find it best to live based on individual cost/benefit analysis and the higher the reward, the greater the propensity to move (Massey et al. 1993). The theory can, however, not explain why people from certain areas move to certain places without optimizing the costs and benefits. Quantifiable variables of lifestyle and other social factors are here counted for as push factors. Theories like Theory of the dual labour market and Segmented market theories stress the pull factors and continuations of migration instead (Claydon & Beardwell 2001). As pull factor, education can here be seen as an important motive.

Fig. 2. Migration: Pull factors

Photo: Lena Wikström

There have been efforts to merge the two types of theories together. Net work theory stresses the importance of contacts and knowledge for the decision to move (Schoorl 1995). Kritz and Zlotnik (1992) emphasize historical, cultural, colonial and technological linkages between migrants and destinations. Jennissen (2007) finds that network theory explains why migration flows is an ongoing phenomenon by stressing the arising of institutions, strengthening the linkages between immigrants and the countries they come from. Adey (2010) finds that “societal contexts shape the way mobilities are treated and understood” (p 81). In a North Atlantic context, education as a pull factor limits the number of possible destinations to move to while job as a pull factor broadens the number.

New Economic Theory of Migration assumes that decisions are rarely taken by an individual but collectively arrived at by the family and the aim is not just maximizing the income but also about minimizing risks, like unemployment or social problems (Liu 1975). Here, the household is defined as the smallest decision unit for migration.

In contrast to these theories on international migrations from developing countries to developed countries , the literature on temporary mobility in the developed world within a country is sparse and unsystematic (Bell & Ward 2000).

This study has its focus on the impact of push- and pull-factors in a domestic migration context with life-style, education, work and social situation as pull and push factors. The impact on migrants and on the out- and in-bound migration destinations is also considered.

METHOD The study is based on the assumption that the decisions behind back migration are made by the households. There is, however, a distinction between out-moving and back-moving households since the out-moving households are normally constituted of a single person. This means that most out-moving figures represent a single person and are dealt with as such. The majority of back-movers live in households of more than one person, but the interviewed person represents the whole household, which is counted as one back-mover.

The decision-making process is normally a development over time. Pull-factors and push- factors interact before the decision and often make it compromise between the two sets of factors, a compromise in favour of or inevitable for the move (Garvill et al.2000; Kostela et al. 2008).

Net migration is the difference between out- and in-migrated persons. That difference does not say very much about the size of each flow. Therefore it is necessary to see the flows separately like the motives behind them in order to forecast changes. That can be done by screening all migrants. The costs for that in terms of money and time is substantial plus the obvious risk that it yet will not be successful in covering all the migrants.

For this project, a randomized semi-structured interview at a limited number of destinations has been regarded as a viable way to get satisfactory information.

The choice of destinations for investigations has followed some principles: the interviewed people had moved back during the period 1999-2009 to the place where they were born.

The destinations should · be located within the North Atlantic coastal peripheralities · be entities possible to cope with statistically · have between 1000 and 5 000 inhabitants.

The first criterion has resulted in a concentration of investigations to the Northern and Eastern coastal area in Iceland, to the peripheral parts of the Faroe Islands, and to a small municipality in Northern Norway.

Municipalities with requested size were easy to find but the number of in movers was sometimes too low to make it statistically significant.

Only one destination, Hvammstangi (24 interviews), met that requirement so it was necessary to put several smaller entities together to a joint destination, a region. These were Patreksfjörður in the Westfjords, Ólafsfjörður and Skagafjörður in the North region, Vopnafjördur and Höfn in the East region and Vestmannaeyjar as a single entity in the South. All together, there were 56 interviews in Iceland.

In Norway, Kvænangen municipality in Troms Fylke was chosen (21 interviews) and in the Faroe Islands, Vagur (16 interviews) and Klaksvik (17 interviews) were chosen. The total number of interviews is 115.

Fig. 3. Number of interviews related to investigated destinations, N=115. 60

0 Iceland Norway Faroe Islands

The households have been categorised after the members´ status as back movers into four cathegories.

The interviews have taken place from June 2010 to February 2011.

RESULTS

TYPE OF HOUSEHOLDS Household is the smallest decision unit of the society and a move is a decision jointly taken by the household. But the household can differ in structure and this difference may have an impact on the decision.

The 115 interviewed households have been structured after eventual partner’s status as back-mover or in-mover. This structure is as follows: BB: Both husband and wife are back movers BI: Husband is back mover, wife is in mover IB: Husband is in mover, wife is back mover Bf: A single woman as back mover Bm: A single man as back mover

1. Household structure About a third of the households (38) were BB-households at the interview moment. Most of these were found on the Faroe Islands (24) and only one was found in Norway.

Another third of the households were BI-households (35). The structure was somewhat contrary to the BB-households since most of them were located in Iceland (19) and Norway (9) and only a few (4) in the Faroe Islands.

Fig. 4. Household structure when interviewed, N =115. 30

20 Iceland 15 Norway

10 Faroe

0 BB BI IB Bf Bm

The number of IB-households was less than the number of BI-households (23). The settling structure reminds of the BI-households (Iceland 11, Norway 8, Faroe Islands, 4).

There were 10 Bf households, 7 in Iceland, 2 in Norway and only 1 in Faroe Islands. Bm households were even fewer: 5 in Iceland, 2 in Norway and 1 in Faroe Islands.

In total, the BB and BI households dominate with a male back mover in 62 % of all households (71 households). Back-moving seems to be a male undertaking.

There is a difference in the numbers of BB-households between Faroe Islands and Norway and Iceland with most of the back movers in the Faroes being BB-households. One explanation for this difference is that in the Faroes the BB- households in most cases were couples when they moved. The main reason for this is that in the Faroes it is possible to go to the upper-secondary school locally, without moving from your hometown. This also means that youngsters in the Faroes reach the age of early 20ties before leaving, and within that time they may have met their future partner. And when moving back, the move back together, as this study also shows. As mentioned it is more common in the Faroes that couples leave to together, then it is in Norway and Iceland. One obvious reason is that in Norway and Iceland is more common to move to get an upper-secondary, and being around 17 years old it is not common to move with together with a partner.

2. Age of the interviewed The age of the interviewed persons was in most cases around 30 to 35 or 41 to 50 years. The average for Iceland is 42 years, for Norway 49 years and for Faroe Islands 36 years.

The figures indicate that people move back at certain periods of their life.

Fig. 5. Age of interviewed, N =115. 18 16 14 12 10 Iceland 8 Norway 6 Faroe 4 2 0 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-50 51-65 66-

3. Size of the households A third of the households (42) had no children at home and 11 of these child-less households were single. On the average, there was 1,4 child per household

The average number of children was for · BB-household 1,7 ( Iceland 2,5 and Faroe Islands 1,5) · BI-households 2,5 (did not differ between the countries) · IB- households 1,2 (7 were childless) · Bf-households 0,8 (4 had children, 2 with one child and 2 with 2 children) · Bm-households 0,25 (one had a child, a teen-ager)

In Norway, only 8 out of 21 households had children.

Fig. 6. Size of household, N =115 16

10 Iceland 8 Norway 6 Faroe 4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Only 6 % of all households had 4 children and none had more.

DEMOGRAPHY

1. Age when moving out Almost 60 % have left by the age of 20 and 90% by the age of 25, mainly to a place with a secondary school. The figures are for · Iceland 91 %, · Norway 95 % · Faroe Islands 87 %.

Those who left up to 20 years, the overall figure is 59 %.

These figures differ between the countries: · Iceland, 82 % · Norway 71 % · Faroe Islands only 18 %. Only 3 were older than 35 when moving away, all of them Icelanders.

Fig. 7. Age when moving out, N =115

50 45 40 35 30 Iceland 25 Norway 20 15 Faroe 10 5 0 -15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-50 51-65

The form of the curves for Iceland and Faroe Islands correspond to the two different peaks in figure 6. There is about five years delay between the two peaks. There is a statistical link between moving out and moving in within the life-span.

2. Age when moving back The average age when moving back is 36 years. In total, half of the interviewed moved back when they were between 25 to 35 years old. A fourth returned already before 25.

The average age of moving back is for · Iceland 35 years · Norway 51 years · Faroe Islands 30 years Fig 8. Moving back age, N =115 18 16 14 12 10 Iceland 8 Norway 6 Faroe 4 2 0 20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-50 51-65 66-

In Iceland and the Faroe Islands, middle age people move back and in Norway, they move back at an older age. Norway, 5 were over 50 and 3 over 60 and the oldest back mover was 69 when she moved back. The oldest back mover of all was from Iceland and had reached the age of 89.

3. Years staying away The average number of years for stay away is 18.

The average length of stay away is for · Iceland 13 years · Norway 23 years · Faroe Islands 10 years

For Icelanders there are noticeable peaks in returning either after staying away 4 or 10 years, which corresponds to figure 9.

Fig. 9. Stay away years, N =115 14

8 Norway

6 Faroe Iceland 4

0 1.-3 4.6 7.-9 10.-12 13-15 16-20 21-30 31-

In Norway, the figures indicate another pattern and the shortest period to stay away is 7 years and many return later in their life-cycle.

The Faroe Islands have the shortest stay away in average and they typically stay for a university degree in Denmark.

People move for education at first hand and move back when they have finished that education. In Iceland and Norway, it is about secondary school which typically takes 4 years in Iceland and those who stay away for 10 years may have attended university as well. The difference between the three locations is between Norway and the other two. The small municipality Kvænangen with little opportunities for education and work has fewer back movers in an active period of live. It is more likely they move back in their older days

4. Moving back year There are two peak periods for back moving: 2001-2002 and 2007-2008. For Iceland there is a significant drop of back movers in 2003 and 2009, the last year definitely due to the crisis. In Norway, the back moving years are more spread, probably due to a more stable economy. The Faroese, the years 2001-2003 were good years but the years 2008/2009 have been more problematic.

Fig. 10. Moving back year, N =115 12

8 Iceland Norway 6 Faroe 4

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

MOTIVES FOR MOVING OUT

1. Push factors The main reason for moving away was education 62 %.

Icelanders and Norwegians initial move away was for secondary education while the Faroese in the study did not have to move for education until it was time for higher education.

In Iceland the participants came from communities where the distance to the nearest secondary school was from 50 up to 100 km away and with winter transport conditions the best option might be 400 km away.

For Kvænagen in Norway, Alta (100 km away) is the closest city with secondary academic education and Tromsö (300 km) where there is a full University.

The situation in the Faroe Islands is different since secondary school education is available even if you stay at home. The option here is higher education in Denmark at the age around 20.

Fig. 11. Push factors, moving out, N =115. 35

20 Iceland Norway 15 Faroe 10 Kolumn1 5

0 No education Family situation Work situation Change None available

Work (unemployment) was the second most important push factor (15 %).

Social factors (13 %) include situations like ”parents´divorce” (2), ”own divorce” (1), ”to live with women” (1, claiming that this happened every time he moved).

For some, the family situation forced them to move and some wanted change. Others had troubles with the situation where they lived, like family problems (1), housing problems (1), gossiping (2).

Change of life had also a high ranking as push factor (12 %). This change was about seeking an improved life experience by ”testing something new”, ”adventure”, ”too few women”, ”dull and boring”, ”something different at a different place”, ”challenge”, ”see the world”, ”fresh air”.

2. Pull factors

Education was the most important pull factor even if it was ranked lower as pull factor than push factor: 46 % named education as a factor drawing them to a particular destination.

The percentage of respondents naming education as a pull factor is for: Iceland 21 % Norway 12 % Faroe Islands 13 %

Examples of pull factors for education: ”good courses”, ”requested education available only there”, ”structure my knowledge and get better competence”, ”education give job possibilities”. Many were clear on what they wanted to study and what they wanted to use the education for.

Social situation was ranked almost as high as education as a pull factor: 43 % named it.

The figures for social situation as pull factor: Iceland 24 % Norway 3 % Faroe Islands 16 %

Examples of social motives as pull factors: ”Living with grandmother”, ”boy-friend lived there”, ”the school dormitory almost a home place”, ”house owned by the family”, ”friends”, ”together with mother”, ”parents moved”.

Fig. 12. Pull factors, moving out, N =115. 30

Iceland 15 Norway Faroe 10

0 Requested study Social environment Work conditions Change of life

Work had a minor importance: 13 %.

The figures are for: Iceland 7 % Norway 2 % Faroe Islands 5 %

Most state that they ”got a job”. For some women, it was a more deliberate step since they were not socially supposed for them in the old days to work.

Change of life had the lowest ranking, evenly spread among the countries: 7 %. Motives for change were ”curiosity”, ”meet new people”, ”see other parts of the country”.

It is notable that education as a push/pull factor comes in different ages in the three cases. In Iceland and Norway education becomes a push and a pull factor after the primary school, but in the Faroes it is not a push/pull factor before after the upper secondary school. This means that youngsters in the Faroes stay longer in their home environment then in Iceland and Norway. One relevant question is if the longer stay in your hometown has any influence on the desire to move back - a question which though is not answered in this study.

CHOSEN DESTINATIONS

1. First choice Big cities like Reykjavik and Tromsö have been important places to go to for Icelanders and Norwegians. Only 3 of the Faroese went to Torshavn. For the rest of the Faroese, Denmark was almost a necessity. About a third of the respondents answered Denmark unspecified. When specified, 36 % said a place in Jutland and 19 % Copenhagen. Even if all who said Denmark actually went to Copenagen, it would yet be only 50 % having gone there.

Fig. 13. Chosen places, first choice, N=115. 35

20 Iceland 15 Norway 10 Faroe 5

0 Reykjavik, Other big cities Other places Denmark Other countries Tromsö, Thorshavn

Smaller places were of importance for Icelanders and Norwegians but not for Faroese. These smaller places have vocationally oriented secondary schools, which were the target for most of them going there.

Big cities, like Alta, Hammerfest and Oslo, were real alternatives in Norway beside Tromsø. In Iceland, cities like Akureyri, Ísafjörður and Egilsstaðir were alternatives beside Reykjavik. In the Faroe Islands there were few alternatives to Torshavn.

A few went farther abroad: 3 in Iceland (to Sweden and Norway), 3 in the Faroe Islands (to Ireland, South Africa, Australia).

2. Additional choice The pattern for second and third choices is different from first choice.

After school, 38 % chose a big city but some left the big cities for cities more close to home.

It was also more frequent to stay abroad after education or 13%.

A small group of participants (13 or 11%) went further afield to countries outside the Nordic region and Europe.

Fig. 14. Chosen places, additional choice, N =115. 30

Iceland 15 Norway 10 Faroe Islands

0 Big cities Other places Abroad No other places

MOTIVES FOR MOVING BACK 1. Pull factors Work is the most frequent motive for moving back: 42 % mention it.

The percentages naming work as a pull factor are for: Iceland: 43 % Norway: 38 % Faroe Islands: 47 %

It also seems that most of the interviewed (50 %) got a qualified job, matching their achieved education.

Lifestyle is the second most important pull factor: 28 %.

The figures for lifestyle as pull factor: Iceland: 7 % Norway: 24 % Faroe Islands: 11 %

Examples of motives are ”homesick”, ”I belong to this place”, ”I want my children to be raised here”, ”I miss my relatives”.

Fig. 15. Pull factors, moving back, N =115. 30

20 Iceland 15 Norway

10 Faroe Islands

0 Lifestyle Social situation Work Housing Forced to

The social situation has been a pull factor for 11 %.

The percentage naming social situation as pull factor: Iceland: 7 %

Norway: 5 % Faroe Islands: 21 %

Some examples of motives are short and concise like ”family” or ”got daycare”, while other are more elaborated, like ”both our parents live here”, ”I got a child and I moved home so I could have help with baby-sitting” or ”no family within 100 miles”. Housing is a backmoving motive for 12 %.

The figures for housing as pull factor: Iceland: 4 % Norway: 29 % Faroe Islands: 16 %

Many (50 %), however, state that housing has contributed to the decision to move back. Typical examples concerning cost of living are ”prices are lower here”, ”I already owned two houses”, ”we bought a house a year before we went back”, ”we moved into my parents´ house”.

2. Push factors Lifestyle is the most important push factor for moving back: 36 %. When the respondents put lifestyle as the most important push factor which made them move must mean that the lifestyle where they live for the moment has not been optimal.

The figures for life-style as pull factor: Iceland: 30 % Norway: 43 % Faroe Islands: 40 %

Fig. 16. Push factors, moving back, N =115 18

10 Iceland 8 Norway 6 Faroe 4

0 Lifestyle Missing Living costs Work Obliged to None problems relatives problems

Some say directly that they do not like the way of living in a bigger city: “you always have to queue up and you must always pay for car parking”, “there is always stress”, “life is tiresome”, there is “light everywhere, light pollution”. Others feel “isolated” and one says frankly that “he needs to be a bigger part of the community”. Some do not find any push factor (14 %). Of these, 7 have no explanation while the rest (8) specify their motives into two groups:”not relevant” (3) and ”very satisfied at the other place” (5). Half of the households who find no push factor contain one in mover in each. Two respondents claimed that they had an obligation to return to care for an elderly parent.

CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER MOVING BACK

1. Environmental circumstances Most of the back-movers are satisfied with their environment or 75%, whereof 30% were very satisfied.

The figures for satisfaction with environment: Iceland: 70 % with 29 % very satisfied Norway: 86 % with 33 % very satisfied Faroe Islands: 76 % with 29 % very satisfied

Those who are satisfied stress factors like “child friendly”, “relaxed community”, “closeness”, “safety”, “in-formal”. Those who point especially to the nature environment use phrases like “nature is close”, “don’t almost need TV”, “enormous experiences”, “can´t find a better place”, “freedom”, “unique”, “not comparable to concrete environment”, “short distances”, “in Denmark, there is no nature”.

Fig. 17. Views on environment, N =115. 25

15 Iceland Norway 10 Faroe Islands

0 Very satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied No opinion

Those not satisfied stress general things like ”traditional gender roles”, ”lack of day-care”, ”lack of service”,”difficult to be single”, ”tourism no solution”,”lack of activities”, bad school”,”I gave it two years and we bought a house and now I can´t move”,”one goes to the coop store for a reason, not to be tempted”, ”extremely bad infrastructure”, ”poor offers for children”, ”village like”, ”dirty”, ”people don´t take care of nature”.

Almost half of the 38 households moving back being very satisfied with the environment, (17) contained a back-moving man. Of these, there were 10 BB-households.

Of the not satisfied 21 households, 15 contained a back moving man and 6 a back moving woman.

In the Faroe Islands, all unsatisfied backmoving households were BB-households except one with an inmoving wife. The figures for Iceland were the reverse with no BB-households.

2. Social circumstances Most of back movers are satisfied with social circumstances, even if the figure is lower than for the environmental circumstances: 66 % (23 % very satisfied).

The figures for satisfaction with the social situation: Iceland: 64 % with 29 % very satisfied Norway: 71 % with 14 % very satisfied Faroe Islands: 66 % with 18 % very satisfied

Nature and general environment like lifestyle seem to play a greater role as motives for moving back than the social context. An explanation can be that the natural environment is still in their memories and in many ways unchanged while the social context is continuously undergoing changes.

Fig. 18. Views on social circumstances, N =115. 25

15 Iceland Norway 10 Faroe Islands

0 Very satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied No opinion

Reasons for being very satisfied are stated like “great diversity in activities”, “good security net”, “relatives”, “good contacts to other people”, “this is home”, “we know everybody”, “plenty of offers”.

The 14 % of the back movers who are not satisfied with the social conditions name “too small place”, “few things to do”, “difficult for single people”, “problems with small schools”, “miss city life”, “isolated in winter”, “miss professional social environment”, “miss a house of their own”, “too much social control”, “gossip”, “you have to work to get part of a social network”, “miss cultural arrangements”, “too few sport activities”, “more places for grown- ups”.

Of the 21 households moving back being very satisfied with the environment, 15 contained a back moving man with 5 being BB-households. Of the 20 households moving back being not satisfied with the social conditions, 12 contained a back moving woman.

3. Economic circumstances Most of the respondents (72 %) are satisfied with the situation after they have moved back and 14 % of them are very satisfied. They especially point to the low living costs like housing as an important reason for the satisfaction. Most of back movers are satisfied with the economic situation, even if the figure here is more split: 72 % (14 % very satisfied). The not satisfied constitutes 24 %.

The figures for satisfaction with the social situation: Iceland: 71 % with 9 % very satisfied and 21 % dissatisfied. The rest is struck by the crisis. Norway: 90 % with 33 % very satisfied and 10 % dissatisfied. Faroe Islands: 60 % with 11 % very satisfied and 37 % dissatisfied. The rest is struck by the crisis.

Fig. 19. Satisfaction with economic circumstances, N =115. 40

25 Iceland 20 Norway 15 Faroe islands

0 Very satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied Crisis

Those who are not satisfied (24 %) point to various circumstances like ”living costs in a small community actually higher than in city”,” poor service creates longer transports”, ”entrepreneur difficulties”, ” low pay area”, ”low social security”, ”unemployment ”.

The crisis is mentioned by 5 respondents (4 from Iceland, 1 from Faroe Islands).

They give different comments to the impact of crisis on their economy: ”the situation would have been better if the crash had not been in 2008 but it is OK”, ”it is worse than they are used to and this can be because of the crisis, not the place and it is difficult to start all over at this age”, ”it is worse now than before the crisis”, ”not good since she still has to clean up after her life in Reykjavik”. One has only a single word for the economic situation: ”Impossible”.

4. Occupation Full time occupation (all in the household have full time or part time occupation) is declared by 69 % of the households while 11 % live on social security benefits of different forms.

Occupation figures: Iceland: 81 % whereof 38 % with full employment for both partners. 19 % has social security. Norway: 76 % whereof 62 % with full employment for both partners.24 % has social security. Faroe Islands: 100 % whereof 55 % with full employment for both partners. No one has social security

Fig. 20. Occupation, N =115. 25

10 Iceland Norway 5 Faroe

Of those with social security, 4 are retired, 4 have disablement pensions, 3 are early retired and 2 live temporarily on social security.

There are 14 % of the back movers who are entrepreneurs, 6 of them farmers, 4 fishermen and 6 with a company of their own.

Households with full employment for both partners are evenly found in half of all types of households except Bf households where only 2 of 10 women are fully occupied.

HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE DIFFERENCES IN GENERAL

The households are structured after eventual partner’s status as back-mover or in-mover. This structure is as follows:

HH: Both husband and wife is back-movers HI: Husband is back-mover, wife is in-mover IH: Wife is back-mover; husband is in-mover, If: Wife is single and back-mover Im: Man is single and back-mover

Fig. 21. Type of households, N =115. 40

0 BB BI IB Bf HM

If we look at how the different types of households have answered to the different questions we, get this matrix:

Fig. 22. Matrix over answers households-wise, n=115 BB BI IB Bf/Bm Total Age, interviewed 34 43 42 35/59 41 No. of children 1,7 1,9 1,2 0,8/0,25 1,5 Age moving out 23 17 18 18/23 18 Stay away time 9 18 17 11/32 18 Decision She 47 % He 54 % She 100 % 100/100 % She 46 % He 24 % She 14 % He 23 % Push factor, out Study 66 % Study 63 % Study 78 % Study 33 % Study 61 % Pull actor, out Family 55 % Study 43 % Study 43 % Social 39 % Study 41 % Destination Dk 47 % Other pl 49 % Other pl 48% Big cities 33 % Other pl 34 % Re/Tr/Th 26 % Re/Tr/Th 29 % Bic cities 35 % Several dest. No other pl63 % Big cities 51 % Bic cities 48 % No other pl50 % Big cities 37 % Pull factor, back Work 45 % Work 54 % Work 35 % Lifestyle 39 % Work 41 % Push , back Lifestyle 29 % Lifestyle 40 % Lifestyle 26 % Lifestyle 50 % Lifestyle 35 % Environ, situation Satisfied 47 % Satisfied 57 % Satisfied 52 % V. satisfied 33 % Satisfied 43 % V. Satisfied 29 % V. Satisfied 25 % V. Satisfied 35 % N. satisfied 33 % V. satisfied 33 % Social situation Satisfied 45 % Satisfied 51 % N. satisfied 43 % Satisfied 39 % Satisfied 43 % V. Satisfied 29 % V. Satisfied 23 % Satisfied 30 % N. satisfied 17 % V. satisfied 26 % Economic situation Satisfied 71 % Satisfied 57 % Satisfied 48 % Satisfied 56 % Satisfied 59 % V. Satisfied 2 % V. Satisfied 21 % N. satisfied 30 % N. satisfied 28% N. satisfied 26 %

There are certain characteristics that separate the different types of households.

Age of the interviewed differs between the BB- and Bf- households with ten years compared to the BI- and IB-households which may indicate a pattern where female in- and back movers are involved, the average age increases like the average time staying away.

BI-households have more children in average than other household types.

Education is the general push- and pull-factor for moving away, which shows a migration pattern dominated by youngsters, which in turn is created by politics: concentration on secondary education at bigger places.

Choice of destination shows that female back movers move out to smaller places to attend more vocationally focused education. Most BB-households have not been to other places than the first ones they moved to.

Work is the main pull-factor and lifestyle the main push factor for moving back. It may be assumed that life at the out-migrated place is obviously not optimal and when a work opportunity at the home place appears, the idea of moving back is materialised.

A majority of the back movers are satisfied with the present environmental, social and economic situation with an exception for the IB-households. Environment situation has the highest ranking and the economic situation the lowest.

HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE DIFFERENCES AFTER TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD

1. BB-households BB-households have two back-moving partners. It is the most common type in this investigation and is most frequent on the Faroe Islands while there is only one found in Norway.

Fig. 23. BB household after destinations, N =38.

Iceland Norway 1 Faroe Islands

Some characterstics are relatively in common for all BB-households compared to other types of households.

BB-household answers Relation to total amount of answers · Average number of children 1,7 –to 1,5 · Work as pull back factor 45 % to 41 % · Environmental satisfaction 76 % to 76 % · Social satisfaction 74 % to 69 %

Other characteristics are not in common compared to other types of households:

Lower ranking than average · Average age interviewed 34 to 41 · Stay away tim 9 to 18 · Education as push factor out 66 % to 61 % · Age when moving back 30 to 38 · Lifestyle as push back factor 29 % to 35 %

Higher ranking than average

· Age when moving out 23 to 18 · Family as pull factor out 55 % to 43 % · Visiting no other places 63 % to 36 %

The BB household respondents move later away and come back sooner, the fact that family is an important pull factor may suggest that the partners pull each other. 2. BI-households

BI-households consist of a male back mover and a female in mover. There are 35 BI- households in this investigation and most of them are located in Iceland (19).

Fig. 24. BI-households after destination, N =35. 7

26 Iceland Norway Faroe Islands 54

Some characterstics are relatively in common for all BI-households compared to other types of households:

BI-household answers Relation to total amount of answers · Average age when interviewed 43 to 41 · Average age whenmoving out 17 to 18 · Stay away time 18 to 18 · Age when moving back 36 to 38 · Education as push factor out 63 % to 61 % · Education as pull factor out 43 % to 41 %

Other characteristics are not in common:

Lower ranking than average: none

Higher ranking than average · Average number of children 1,9 to 1,5

· Choice of destination: Other places 49 % to 34 % · Several choices: Big cities 51 % to 37 % · Work as pull factor back 54 % to 41 % · Lifestyle as push factor back 40 % to 35 % · Environmental satisfaction 82 % to 76 % · Social satisfaction 74 % to 69 % · Economic satisfaction 77 % to 59 %

The BI household respondents have more children living at home, they are more satisfied with their current situation and they have more comparison having stayed in more places during their time away.

3. IB households IB households have a female back mover and a male in mover. There are 23 IB-households in this investigation and most of them are located in Iceland.

Fig. 25. IB-households after destination, N =23.

11 Iceland Norway Faroe Islands

Some characterstics are relatively in common for all IB-households compared to other types of households:

IB household answers Relation to total amount of answers · Average age when interviewed 40 to 41 · Average age whenmoving out 17 to 18 · Stay away time 17 to 18 · Education as pull factor out 43 % to 41 %

Other characteristics are not in common:

Lower ranking than average: · Age when moving back 33 to 38 · Work as pull factor back 35 % to 41 % · Lifestyle as push factor back 26 % to 35 % · Economic satisfaction 70 % to 74 %

Higher ranking than average · Average number of children 1,8 to 1,5 · Educatio as push factor out 78 % to 61 % · Choice of destination: Other places 48 % to 34 % · Several choices: Big cities 48 % to 37 % · Environmental satisfaction 82 % to 76 % · Social satisfaction 73 % to 69 %

The IB household respondents have moved away for education and their satisfaction with the economy in the current situation is lower. While their satisfaction with social and environmental conditions is higher as a pull factor, lifestyle as a push factor for the move back is lower suggesting that lifestyle and current situation matches well.

4. Bf/Bm-households

Bf households A Bf-household consists of a single female back mover, with or without children. There are 10 IB-households in this investigation and most of them are located in Iceland.

Fig. 26. Bf/Bm-households after destination, N =18.

7 6 5 4 Bf 3 2 Bm

1 Bm 0

Iceland Bf Norway Faroe Islands

Some characterstics are relatively in common for all Bf/Bm-households compared to other types of households:

Bf-household answers Relation to total amount of answers · Average age when moving out 17 to 18 · Education as push factor out 40 % to 41 % · Several choices: Big cities 40 % to 37 %

Other characteristics are not in common:

Lower ranking than average: · Average age when interviewed 35 to 41 · Average number of children 0,8 to 1,5 · Stay away time 11 to 18 · Age when moving back 30 to 38 · Social conditions as pull factor out 30 % to 37 % · Lifestyke as pull factor back 30 % to 41 % · Environmental satisfaction 60 % to 76 % · Social satisfaction 30 % to 69 % · Economic satisfaction 50 % to 74 %

Higher ranking than average · Choice of destination: None 50 % to 37 %

· Lifestyle as push factor back 50 % to 35 %

Bm-households A Bm-household consists of a single male back mover, with or without children. There are 8 IB-households in this investigation and most of them are located in Iceland.

Some characterstics are relatively in common for all Bf/Bm-households compared to other types of households:

Bm household answers Relation to total amount of answers · Social conditions as pull factor out 38 % to 37 %

Other characteristics are not in common:

Lower ranking than average: · Average number of children 0,3 to 1,5 · Environmental satisfaction 50 % to 76 % · Social satisfaction 60 % to 69 % · Economic satisfaction 60 % to 74 %

Higher ranking than average · Average age when interviewed 59 to 41 · Average age when moving out 23 to 18 · Stay away time 32 to 18 · Age when moving back 51 to 38 · Work as push factor out 50 % to 41 % · Several choices: None 50 % to 37 % · Choice of destination: Big cities 50 % to 37 % · Lifestyle as pull factor back 50 % to 35 % · Lifestyle as push factor back 50 % to 35 %

The individual back movers seem less satisfied with returning than the couples are. The single men return later than the women. Both single men and women are less satisfied with their environmental and economic situation than couples and single women are much less happy with their social situation. This is reflected also in the assessment of lifestyle as a factor, it is for the men much more important in deciding to move back than for women and couples. This may suggest that the concerns for a developing macho culture in depopulating areas are not totally unfounded.

CONCLUSIONS

Moving away Push factors The need for education makes it necessary for younge people to move. Many express their motive for that move as ”inevitable”.

Problems with social life is not referred to as a problem except for some respondents. The social control is regarded as both a positive and negative factor. APerceived as a negative control, it becomes a push factor. Divorce and gossip are social factors that can be push factors.

In this study, change is ranked as important as the social factor. The home place is too small or too easy to understand, it requires more to satisfy for a rich life. It refers to what Kåks (2007) call the positive ”life-script” where the grown period of the life cycle is pushed further and further into the future. This change factor may in reality be much bigger since the very base for this feeling may result in a ”never-back-again”- feeling. Back movers by those who have moved away due to this factor will probably constutite a tiny minority.

Pull factors Besides education, is in many cases looked upon as ”inevitable”, other factors play an important role for mainly young migrants. The content of the answers may be condensed to love, relatives and friends at the destination.

Work as a pull factor is normally implicit in education as pull factor.

Change is described as ”seen other parts of the country” and met ”new people”. Those who still find that important do not move back.

Moving back Both trans-border mobility and domestic mobility mean a crossing not only of a line by also of something else, like local solidarities, verbal promises, and unspoken ties with friends and workmates. “In other words, the doing of these mobilities materially blocked, influenced or halted another” (Adey 2010, p. 132). In other words, migration has an impact on the migrant, the place left and the place moved to. Neither will remain the same.

Pull factors Lifestyle is, if not the most common in the answers, the most important pull back factor in reality. What really makes the dreams come true is work as the pull factor. Work makes it possible to materialize the dreams of a changed lifestyle or a return to the roots. An often used expression is “when the opportunity came” and that is the case when they get a job offer at the home place. Another opportunity is when they get the possibility to move into a house of the parents or a summer house with qualities for permanent dwelling.

Push factors There were not always any push factors. In 15 % of the answers, it is stated that there are no problems to live where they were but pull factors appeared to be stronger.

Most of the push factors the respondents refer to a feeling of being uncomfortable with the situation like the stress caused by life in a big city or living costs, especially for housing, or a feeling of homesickness.

Problems with job a situation is not a push factor, except for in a very few cases.

Sometimes the push factor is stronger than the pull factor. That is probably the case when relatives at home need help and the respondents feel obliged to move back.

Partners It is not always easy to be an in moving partner. Both in BI and IB households in moving partners have problems with their partner sometimes.

In a similar study, made in Sweden in 1984, and followed up in 2008, there was a signicant difference in sustainability between BB households on one hand and the BI and IB households on the other. Most of the BB households still remained intact (some had disappeared by natural reasons) but especially the BI households were divorced and/or out- migrated. It was revealed by in-depth interviews that backmoving men moved to physical roots, like house and nature, while inmoving women moved to a social context they hoped to establish but this establishment was not always underpinned or supported by the men and that resulted in conflicts (Gustafsson & Nilsson 1988).

Although such direct expressions have not been found in this study, as it did not include in- depth interviewing, the results indicate that these differences may be manisfested here particularly in the differing importance and affect that men and women attach to life style as a decisive factor in their move.

The present situation There is a general satisfaction with the present situation among the back movers.

Dissatisfaction relates mostly to the economic sitation and to a lesser degree to the social situation. Those not satisfied with the social situation are concerned about the character of the place and the character of the people at the place. The place is found too small and parochial with too little to do. The other opinion rotates around the problem to get properly into the social life at place. That is especially the case for female in movers.

DISCUSSION

Implications on life cycles According to Ayer (2010), ”mobilities as underscored by political decision making and ideological meanings that arrange mobility and the possibility of mobility...to relations of society and power” (p 131).

The fact that about 80 % leave their home place mostly at the age of 16 in Iceland and Norway, means that the out moving flow is initiated by the polically decided organisation of secondary education locational structure. It is performed as temporary activities during a part of the life-cycle and eventually accepted more or less deliberately as a permanent situation, underpinned by a willingness from the migrants to accommodate to the new environment.

For the 16-year old boys and girls, this means education, which is in accord with the segmented market theory (Claydon & Beardwell 2001). The theory is, however, mainly applicable for older people in peripheral areas and the push and pul factors normally mean work. In contrast to the segmented market theory and the neoclassic macroeconomic theory, work has been a push factor for only 17 % of the migrants in this study and none has apostrophated it is a push factor. These theories require mature market with big differences in resources, not a constructed educational situation.

The move has an impact on people´s life cycles, directly and indirectly. Directly on those in focus for this investigation, youngsters at 16, and indirectly on their parents, who may move together with the oldest child of the family to the secondary school place. It may also have an impact on younger siblings, who are forced to change class before they are finished with primary school.

The process perpetuates the reverse centrifugal forces from periphery to centre.

Some, however, have problems with the accommodation process and want to reverse the flow, to move back to their origin. Whether this is good or bad is more or less a moral question but with political implications. From the investigation of back movers in Sweden, the author has often met the argument that it is neccessary for youngsters to move away and develope and it is fine if they come back with updated knowledge. It is, however, not necessary that just those who have moved away come back, it is sometimes more interesting if new in movers come with new ideas and experience from other places.

Kåks (2007) describes by interviews with young people different ”life-scripts” or views on how life ought to be lived, one positive view and one negative view. The positive is the self

43 realisation by pushing grown-up life as far away as possible into the future and the negative is to remain where you are with family and children and stuck in a manual, boring, job.

Regardless of that somewhat philosophical or ideological discussion, it is of interest to know why certain persons reverse the flow and move back and if it is possible to combine the positive ”life-script” with backmoving. Or if the negative ”life-script” really is negative for those who share it. Models for encountering depopulation of the Arctic periphery This investigation is not a normative study and how to make policy or politics out of it is an open question.

First of all, the migration issue is divided into two different phases: moving out and moving back.

The study shows societal structures lie behind most motives for moving out. Since these structures to a significant degree are rpoducts of national poolitics, it is difficult for local authorities to change them. One example can be to open up possibilities for children to remain at home by use of distance independent technology for educational purposes, especially to make it possible for teenagers to stay at home one more year by studying the first yerar of scendary school education at distance.

The other phase is the moving back phase. As far as the answers from the respondents tell us, lifetsyle is the strongest inherent motive for moving back while job opportunities is the releasing factor. But the answers also show that there are several side factors that count: housing and living costs on the materialistic side of life and social inclusiveness aon the idelistic side.

MacCannell (1992) describes in his book Empty meeting grounds how two flows of movements interfere with each other without actually meeting: the tourist flow from the rich world to the poor world and the refugee flow from the poor world to the rich world. And he also finds that these flows are met with at the migrated place in fundamentally different ways. The tourist flow claims that the visited destination accommodates it while the refugee flow has to accommodate to its destination.

In many peripheral municipalities, tourism has become a both supported and lucrative activity and in other peripheral municipalities, other forms of working places are regarded as more attractive for the society. In both cases, the information offices of the municipality is the tool used to influence these target groups and it has been revealed that the same material and arguments is useful for marketing towards both tourists and presumptive entrepreneurs: they must offer an attractive image of the municipality (Kostela et al. 2008).

Today, the Triple Helix model with coordination and cooperation between academy, industry and authorities, has become popular. An effective counteracting against depopulation requires probably such a model to work after. It has of course to deal with establishing job offers which always has been a key effort for the municipalities. But it is also a matter of an active selection of target groups where research may be of qualitative help.

Education and by implication the corresponding employment opportunities seem to be deciding factors in moving. This suggests an alternate importance for the effects of applying the triple helix model to rural development projects as they result both in improved access to and diversification of educational opportunities and employment based on higher education qualifications.

As mentioned before, it is important in what way migrants are met with and a positive attitude is the cheapest way to make migrants stay. Here authorities have a possibility to use an instrument that is for free: a view on citizens or visitors as resources and not problems. Svensson (2006) finds by her interviews with young people moving away from a small place in Sweden that access to economic, cultural and social resources are crucial for them when they decide to move or stay at the home place.

References Adey, P. (2010) Mobility London: Routledge

Athukorala,P. & Manning, C. (1999) Structural change and International Migration in East Asia: Adjusting to Labour Scarcety Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baldacchino, G. (2008) Population Dynamics from Peripheral Regions: A North Atlantic Perspective, European Journal of Spatial Development no 27, pp 1-19.

Bell, M. & Ward, G. (2000) Comparing temporary mobility with permanent migration Tourism Geographies Vol. 2, No. 1, pp 87-107.

Brox, O. (1966) Hva skjer i Nord-Norge?[What happens in Northern Norway?] Oslo: PAX.

Bukve, O. (2008) Regional change, discourse and governance – the case of Norwa, Umeå: Nordic Conference on Gender, Intersectionality and Regional Development.

Carlsson, L. (1993) Samhällets oregerlighet –organisering och policyproduktion i näringspolitiken [The unmanageableness of the society – organization and policy production in commercial policy] Stockholm: Symposium Graduale.

Claydon, T. & Beardwell, J (2001) Human Resource Management – a contemporary approach Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.

Edvardsson, I.R., Heikkilä, E., Johansson, M., Jóhannesson, H., Rauhut, D., Schmidt, T.D., Stambøl, L.S. & Wilkman, S. (2007) Demographic Changes, Labour Migration and EU-enlargement: - Relevance for the Nordic Regions Stockholm: Nordic Research Programme 2005-2008, Report 2, pp 17-19.

EG 1698 (2005) Bruxelles: European Commission.

Erkki, C. (2005) Avfolkningen I Norrbottens glesbygd [The depopulation of sparsely populated areas in county Norrbotten, Sweden] Luleå: Luleå Technological University.

Garvill, J., Malmberg, G. & Westin, K. (2000) Värdet av att flytta och att stanna [The estimated value of move or stay] Stockholm: Fritzes

Gløersen, E. (2009) Strong, Specific and Promising:Towards a Vision for the NSPA in 2020 WP 2009:4 Stockholm: Nordregio.

Granquist, S., Nilsson, P.Å. & Víglundsdóttir, H. Y. (2010) The Wild North – network cooperation for sustainable tourism in a fragile marine environment in the Arctic Region Paper presented at 2nd International Polar Tourism Research Network Conference, Abisko 13-16 June 2010.

Gustafsson, S. & Nilsson, P.Å. (1988) Utbors markinnehav. Problem eller tillgång i en glesbygd : studium av tillbakaflyttare i Bodums församling [Land-ownership by non-residents. Problem or regression in sparesly populated areas: a study of back- movers in parish of Bodum, Östersund: MidSweden University

Hall, D., Mitchell, M. & Roberts, L. (2003) Tourism and the countryside: Dynamic relationships, In Hall (Ed.) New directions in rural tourism pp.3-18 London: Ashgate.

Jennissen, R (2007) Causality chains in international migration systems approach Population Research and Policy Review, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp 411-436.

Karlsson, A., Lindström, B. & van Well, L. (2009) Mot den tredje generationens regionalpolitik – lärdomar från Nordens autonomier och perifera ö-regioner [Towards the third generation of regional policy – learning from Nordic autonomies and peripheral island regions] Nordregio report 2009:1. Stockholm: NordRegio.

Kostela, J., Naarttijärvi, P. & Jansson, J. (2008) Varför flytta? En studie av in- och utflyttning för kommunerna i Region Siljan [Why move? A study of in- and out-migration in the municipalities of Region Siljan] Borlänge: Dalarnas Forskningsråd.

Kritz, M.M. & Zlotnik, H. (1992) Global interactions: Migration systems, processes and policies. In M.M. Kritz, L.L. Lim & H. Zlotnik (Eds.), International migration systems: A global approach pp. 1-16. Oxford: Clarendon press.

Kåks, H. (2007) Mellan erfarenhet och förväntan [Between experience and expectation] Linköping: University of Linköping

LEADER (1997) Rural Europe. Marketing Quality Rural Tourism, Bruxelles: European Commission.

Leydesdorff, L. (2005) The triple helix model and the study of knowledge-based innovation systems International journal of contemporary sociology, Vol. 42, No.1. Pp. 1-16.

Lindquist, M. (Ed.) (2010) Regional Development in the Nordic Countries NordRegio 2010:2.

Lindström, B. & Nilsson, J.E. (Ed.) Evaluation of EU Structural Fund Stockholm: NordREFO 1996:5.

Liu, B-C. (1975) Differential Net Migration Rates and the Quality of Life Review of Economics and Statistics Vol. 57, pp 329- 337.

MacCannell, D. (1992) Empty meeting grounds Londo: Routledge

Massey, D.S, Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouanouci, A., Pellegrino, A. & Taylor, E.J. (1998) Worlds in motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Myrdal,G (1957) Theory and Undeveloped Regions, London: Duckworth.

Nilsson, P. Å. (1998) Local will and urban demand, In S. Aho (Ed.) Dynamic aspects in Tourism development pp. 191-214 Rovaniemi: Lapin Yliopisto.

Palmer, J. (2003) The Coming Demographic Challenges for Atlantic Canada: Implications for Industrial Change and Productivity Paper for the Annual meeting of the Atlantic Canada Economics Association October 2003.

Piore,M.J. & Charles, F.S. (1984) The second industrial divide. Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books

Prigogine, I. & Nicolis,G. (1989) Exploring Complexity New York: Freeman & Co.

Rural development program for Sweden (2007) Förordning om stöd för landsbygdsutvecklingsåtgärder [Decree on support for rural development actions] (Stockholm: SFS 2007:481).

Schoorl, J. (1995) Determinants of International Migration: Theoretical Approaches and Implications for Survey Research, In R. van der Erf & L. Heering (Eds.) Causes of international migration, pp. 3-14 Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of EU.

Svensson, L. (2006) Vinna eller försvinna [To win or get lost] Linköping: University of Linköping

APPENDIX I

Questionnaire

1. Why did you move? 2. Where did you move? 3. Why did you come back? 4. How is your situation now?

Personal status:

Gender: Man Woman

Age: ...... years

Household: ...... members

If children, how old are they: Between...... years

Occupation (it is possible to mark more than one box):

Full time:

Part time:

Unemployed:

Student:

Pensionist:

Home work:

Distance work

APPENDIX II

HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE DIFFERENCES AFTER DESTINATION

1. Structure of answers, Iceland If we look at the different destinations we find rather big differences.

Fig. 27. Matrix over answers households-wise, Iceland n= 56 BB (15) BI (19) IB (11) Bf/Bm (7/5) Age, interviewed 34 43 37 38/65

No. of children 1,6 2,1 1,5 0,4/0 Age moving out 19,4 16,4 18,2 21/25 Stay away time 11 17 8,3 13/35 Push factor, out Study 64 % Study 53 % Study 73 % Study 58 % Pull actor, out Family 53 % Family 32 % Study 36 % Social 50 % Destination Reykjavik 50 % Other Reykjavik 37 % Other pl 64% Big cities 54 % place 43 % Other place 32 % Big cities 18 %

Several dest. Big cities 50 % Big cities 58 % Big cities 45 % Big cities 54 % Pull factor, back Lifestyle 43 % Work 63 % Work 45 % Lifestyle 63 %

Push , back Living costs 29 % Housing 26 % Costs 36 % Lifestyle 63 % Environ, situation V. Satisfied 43 % Satisfied 58 % Satisfied 63 % V. satisfied 36 % Satisfied 36 % N. Satisfied 26 % V. satisfied 27 % Satisfied 36 %

Social situation Satisfied 36 % Satisfied 37 % V. satisfied 36 % No answer 45 % V. Satisfied 35 % V. Satisfied 26 % Satisfied 36 % Satisfied 36 % Economic situation Satisfied 86 % Satisfied 74 % Satisfied 54 % Satisfied 54 % N. satisfied 36 % N. satisfied 36%

2. Structure of answers, Norway

Fig. 28. Matrix over answers households-wise, Norway n= 21 BB (1) BI (9) IB (8) Bf/Bm (1/2) Age, interviewed 60 49 48 33/50 No. of children 0 0,8 1,5 1/1 Age moving out 50 16,4 16,5 16/17 Stay away time 6 17 30,1 7/17 Decision She He 78 % She 88 % She 100/He 100 %

Push factor, out Study Study 67 % Study 75 % Study/Work Pull actor, out Study Family 78 % Study 37 % Study/Change Destination Tromsö % Big cities 56 % Big cities 50 % O. Places/Tromsö Tromsö 22 % Other places 50 %

Several dest. No Big cities 45 % Big cities 50 % Big cities Pull factor, back Housing Lifestyle 56 % Work 38 % Work/Housing Push , back Lifestyle Lifestyle 45 % Sociala 38 % Lifestyle Environ, situation Very Satisfied Satisfied 78 % Satisfied 38 % Satisfied /N. satis- N. Satisfied 22 % V. Satisfied 38 % fied, V. satisfied

Social situation Satisfied Satisfied 78 % N. satisfied 50 % N. satisfied/ Satisfied Economic situation Satisfied V. satisfied 44 % V. satisfied 50 % Satisfied Satisfied 44 % Satisfied 38 %

3. Structure of answers, Faroe Islands

This is the matrix forFaroe Islands:

Fig. 29. Matrix over answers households-wise, Faroe Islands = n=38 BB (24) BI (7) IB (4) Bf/Bm (1/2) Age, interviewed 35 38 42 26/46 No. of children 2,0 2,4 1,5 2/0 Age moving out 24 22,3 22,5 20/25 Stay away time 6 11 14,5 4/14 Decision She 50 % He 57 % She 100 % She 100/ He 25 % He 100 %

Push factor, out Study 58 % Study 86 % Study 100 % Social/Change Pull actor, out Family 50 % Family 42 % Study 100 % Family/Work Destination Denmark 75 % Denmark 86 % Denmark 100 % Denmark/ Other pl 14 % Other places

Several dest. No other pl.83% Abroad 43 % Big cities 50 % No other pl. Pull factor, back Work 54 % Work 57 % Sociala 75 % Sociala/Work Push , back Lifestyle 29 % Lifestyle 57 % Lifestyle 50 % Lifestyle/costs Environ, situation V. Satisfied 54% V. satisfied 57 % Satisfied 50 % Satisfied /N.satis- N. Satisfied 21% Satisfied 29 % V. Satisfied 50 % fied, V. satisfied

Social situation Satisfied 46 % Satisfied 57 % N. satisfied 75 % Satisfied /N.satis- N.Satisfied 25 % V. satisfied 29 % fied, V. satisfied Economic situation Satisfied 58 % V. satisfied 43 % Satisfied 50 % Satisfied /N.satis- N.Satisfied 42 % fied, V. satisfied

APPENDIX III

SHORT DESCRIPTION OF ICELAND

The population of Iceland was 318.236 the 1st of December 2010. Almost 2/3 of the population live in the Reykjavík area (capital area), 202.186 inhabitants (www.hagstofa.is). The main towns or villages of the project are Patreksfjörður in Vesturbyggð municipality, located in the south part of Westfjord peninsula, Hvammstangi in Húnaþing vestra municipality, located in North West, Siglufjörður and Ólafsfjörður in Fjallabyggð municipality, locatedat the coast of Mid North and Vopnafjöður in Vopnafjarðarhreppur municipality, located in the NorthEast.

(Patreksfjördur lies next to Vatnseyri)

Patreksfjörður

Patreksfjörður is the largest town of the southern part of the Westfjord peninsula. It is a part of Vesturbyggð municipality which also includest he Bíldudalur village and the rural area around. The area depends largely on fishing and fishery industry.

The area is rather isolated due to bad roads which often are closed by winter. That is the case with the road to Ísafjörður, the largest town in Westfjords containing the most diverse shops and services in the area. Other travel connections are through the airport in Bíldudalur to Reykjavík and the ferry across Breiðafjörður to Stykkishólmur in the Snæfellsnes peninsula. Despite the bad connections, tourism has been improving for the last years especially because of the nature, first and foremost Látrabjarg, a seacliff with large number of birds and the westest part of Europe.

Figure 1. Population in Patreksfjörður 1950-2010 (Hagstofa Íslands)

The population of Patreksfjörður was 627 the 1st of January 2011, out of 890 inhabitants of the Vesturbyggð municipality. Located in the area is also the municipality of Tálknafjörður with 306 inhabitants. Total for the area is 1.196 inhabitants. As the figure below shows there has been a large decline in population in Patreksfjörður over the last two decades. The decline has been greater in the surrounding rural areas and in Bíldudalur village. The reason for this development is that the younger people are moving because of lack of job opportunities for educated people and decline in job opportunities because of less fishing and better fishing technique.

Hvammstangi

Hvammstangi is a village in the municipality of Húnaþing vestra, an agricultural area except for the village. The village has rather good road connections, being only 6 kilometers away from road no. 1 and 200 km from the capital area.

For the last years the population of the surrounding rural area has declined, as is the fact for most rural areas in Iceland with few exceptions. Inspite of that the operation of the slaughter house and the meat processing industry is rather strong. The village is a service- center for the area, both in public and private service. A few years ago a public office, Fæðingarorlofssjóður ( Child birth Leave Fund), was moved to Hvammstangi which created a dozen of jobs, mostly for educated people.

The population of Hvammstangi was 582 the 1st of January 2011, out of 1.122 inhabitants of the Húnaþing vestra municipality. As shown in the figure below the population of Hvammstangi did more than double in the 20th century but has since declined a bit. On the other hand the population of the rural area in Húnaþing vestra has declined almost by half since 1980.

Hvammstangi 1950-2010 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

1 9 50 1 9 53 1 9 56 1 9 59 1 9 62 1 9 65 1 9 68 1 9 71 1 9 74 1 9 77 1 9 80 1 9 83 1 9 86 1 9 89 1 9 92 1 9 95 1 9 98 2 0 01 2 0 04 2 0 07 2 0 10 Figure 2. Population in Hvammstangi 1950-2010 (Hagstofa Íslands)

Siglufjörður and Ólafsfjörður

Siglufjörður and Ólafsfjörður merged in the municipality of Fjallabyggð in the year 2006. The two towns have recently been connected by a new road tunnel, Héðinsfjarðagöng. Before that Ólafsfjörður had been connected with the Eyjafjörður area and Akureyri by a road tunnel.

Both the towns depend largely on fishing and fishery industries. Unlike the othervillages and towns Siglufjörður and Ólafsfjörður have no rural areas or agriculture. Decades ago Siglufjörður was one of the main herring towns in Iceland with over 3000 inhabitants. With disapperance of the herring and other changes in fishing and fishery industries along with difficult road connection there has been a constant decline in the population at Siglufjörður for the last 60 years. The population has declined more than half. The population of Siglufjörður was 1.206 the 1st of january 2011. Siglufjörður has now thehighest percentage of eldery pepole of all towns in Iceland and is facing difficulties because of agening of the population. The development in Ólafsfjörður is different. There the population was growing and then stable until the 1990‘s. From that time the population has declined for almost ¼ and the community is facing similar problems as Siglufjörður. The population of Ólafsfjörður was 824 the 1st of January 2011.

There are some small indursties in Fjallabyggð, for instance a fibre-plastic-boat building factory. As many other communities, Fjallabyggð is trying to increase growth in tourism. In Siglufjörður is a herring-museum (Síldarminjasafnið) which has won serveral awards in their field and also a skiing area.

Figure 3. Populationin Siglufjörður 1950-2010 (Hagstofa Íslands)

Figure 4. Populationin Ólafsfjörður 1950-2010 (Hagstofa Íslands)

Vopnafjörður

Vopnafjörður is a fishing village in a fjord facing North East, also with some agriculture in the rural area around. The village is in 130 km distance from Egilsstaðir in the Mid-East and 230

56 km away from Akureyri in the Eyjafjörður region. Road connections are getting better with a new asfalt-road opening this year instead of gravel roads.

The village is very dependent on fishing and there are rather few other job opportunities except in the service sector.

Figure 5. Populationin Vopnafjörður 1950-2010 (Hagstofa Íslands)

The population of Vopnafjörður village was 529 out of 668 in the Vopnafjarðarhreppur municipality the 1st of January 2011. The population of Vopnafjörður village more than doubled in 1950-1980 but has declined since,as it has in the rural area of the municipality.

APPENDIX IV

SHORT DESCRIPTION OF KVÆNANGEN

Kvænangen is a municipality within the county of Troms (Troms fylke) with the administrative centre in Tromsø. Burfjord is the central place in the municipality and it is located at 69°56’0” North and 22°3´0” East which corresponds to Baffin Island in Canada and the northern coast of Alaska.

Fig. 1. Map of Kvænangen area (Kvænangen kommune).

The municipality is transversed by the road E 6 going from South Sweden to the Russian border. Most villages are settled along that road. There is also a settlement at the island of Spildra, 20 minutes by ferry from Burfjord and with about 50 inhabitants.

Kvænangen is located close to the border to Finnmark county (Finnmark fylke) with Alta as administrative centre. The distance to Tromsø from Burfjord is about 300 km while it is only 100 km to Alta, which makes Alta to a service centre for Burfjord with shopping facilities, a University college (Finnmark høgskole) and different forms of secondary education.

Burfjord is not a port of call for the Norwegian Coastal Express –Hurtigrutten – but has daily connections to it by ferry to Skjervøy, one hour away.

The population of Kvænangen was 2.294 the 1st of Januar 2011. There is 0,6 persons per km2 (Statistisk sentralbyrå). There are 112,4 men per 100 women in the age of 20-39 years.

Fig. 2. Population structure 2010. (Statistisk Sentralbyrå)

The population development has been negative since 1995. For 2010, there was a negative birth rate with -14 persons, a negative migration rate with -7 persons and hence a negative growth with -22 persons. Only two years since 1997 have had positive growth: 2001 with 23 persons and 2007 with 7 persons.

Fig. 3. Population 1995-2011 with projection to 2030 (Statistisk Sentralbyrå)

The occupation rate for persons between 15 and 74 years during 2009 was 64 % and equal between men and women and about 20 % had social security. People were employed to 75 % within service and 17 % within agriculture and fishery. Very few were occupied within industry production. Public sector dominates with 55 % of the employed.

APPENDIX V

SHORT DESCRIPTION OF FAROE ISLANDS

The Faroe Islands consist of 18 island, where of 17 are inhabited. By 1st of November 2010 the population of the Faroe Islands was 48.511, whereof 29.869 lived in the capitol Tórshavn (www.hagstova.fo).

Though the Faroe Islands are an island archipelago, it is today possible for 85 percent of the Faroese population via tunnels, subsea tunnels and bridges to reach each other by road.

The two Faroese towns, that are part of this project, are situated in different ends of the country: Vágur on the southernmost island Suðuroy, and Klaksvík on the island of Borðoy, the largest of the northern islands (Norðoyggjar).

VÁGUR

Vágur is the second largest town on the island of Suðuroy, the southern most of the Faroe Islands. The connection between Suðuroy and Tórshavn (the mainland) is by ferry, a two hour trip, which the ferry Smyril does two to three times each day.

Suðuroy is commonly said to be the most beautiful of the Faroe Islands, with the characteristically high cliffs to the west and mountains descending down towards the beautiful fjords facing east. Compared to the northern part of the Faroes, Suðuroy is lower and it is much less demanding to hiking in the mountains.

The island of Suðuroy – one functional region

There are two larger towns on Suðuroy, the largest one is Tvøroyri (population 1st Janurary 2010: 1.741) with Vágur being the second largest. Besides this there are seven smaller towns and villages on Suðuroy.

Towns and villages on Suðuroy are connected by roads and tunnels, creating the basis for Suðuroy being one functional region. The opportunities to commute to jobs and for commodities and services are good – and it is common to commute across the island for jobs and for commodities and services.

Large parts of the supermarkets and service centres are in the two main towns, Tvøroyri and Vágur. This is also partially the case regarding job-opportunities, with most of the jobs for educated people being in these two towns. There are tough job-opportunities outside these two towns, for example in the third largest town, Hvalba (population 1st Janurary 2010: 723), which is a strong fishing community with several large deep-sea trawlers and a filleting plant.

Compared to the country average the number of jobs for educated people is relatively low on Suðuroy. Most of the jobs for educated people are within the public sector, mainly the health and educational sector, but also within public administration, care for the elderly and childcare. Within the private sector there are jobs in the fishing industry and within salmon farming. Besides this there are also a number of companies employing skilled black-smiths, pipe-fitters, electricians, etc. – working both locally and on a weekly basis commuting to assignments in the capitol area.

On Suðuroy there is a new upper-secondary school, where young people typically go after finishing their primary school. Besides the upper-secondary school there is also school giving educations within social and health care.

Declining population on Suðuroy and in Vágur

By 1st of November 2010 the population in Vágur was 1.384, while the total population on the island of Suðuroy was 4.736 (Hagstova Føroya). Vágur and the island of Suðuroy have for the last 50 years experienced a decline in population. When compared to the population growth in the Faroes in general, Suðuroy (including Vágur) has had a poorer growth rate then the rest of the country since the mid 1920s.

Population in Vágur 1950 -Nov. 2010 2.000 1953, 1.824 1984, 1.759 1.800 1.600 Nov. 2010, 1.381 1.400 1971, 1.545 1.200 2000, 1.377 1.000 800 600 400 200 0

1 9 50 1 9 52 1 9 54 1 9 56 1 9 58 1 9 60 1 9 62 1 9 64 1 9 66 1 9 68 1 9 70 1 9 72 1 9 74 1 9 76 1 9 78 1 9 80 1 9 82 1 9 84 1 9 86 1 9 88 1 9 90 1 9 92 1 9 94 1 9 96 1 9 98 2 0 00 2 0 02 2 0 04 2 0 06 2 0 08 2 0 10

Figure 1. Population in Vágur 1950 – Nov. 2010 (Hagstova Føroya).

The main reason for the decline in population in Vágur is a net out-migration of young people. For the last 2-3 decades the trend for getting an education has become stronger and stronger in the Faroes. This means that the typical life-circle of a youngster from Faroe Islands – and also from Vágur – is that they after the primary school go to upper secondary schools and then get a higher education. The decision to get a higher education in the Faroes in most cases also included a decision to leave the country or moving to Tórshavn for a shorter or longer period. 60 percent of does who get a higher education go abroad (Føroysk fjarlestrarskipan - Ein lýsing, MMR 2011). When these young people have finished their education, most job-opportunities are in Tórshavn – if they do decide to move back to the Faroes after finishing their education1. This also means that most areas outside Tórshavn have experienced a decline in population. This is especially true for those parts of the country that do not have a road connection to Tórshavn - a connection that gives the opportunity to commute to jobs in Tórshavn.

1 Studies show that around half of does who go abroad to get a higher education move back to the Faroe Islands after finishing their education (Studni, 2007).

The decline in population in Suðuroy and in Vágur has resulted in a decline in the proportion of people in the younger generations as well as in the proportion of women. In 1985 the population in Vágur was 1.759, with 49 percent women and 51 percent men. In 2010 the percentage had changed to 48 percent women and 52 percent men (which is approximately the same as the country average). In 1985 27 percent of Vágur’s population was below 16 years of age, in 2010 only 22 percent were in this age group (1 percent less than country average). In the same period the proportion of people 67 years and older had grown from 13 to 15 percent, compared to country average, which increased from 10 to 13 percent in the same period.

All in all the population in Vágur is ageing, which is also the case for the Faroese population, but the ageing in Vágur (and Suðuroy) has for the last decades been going faster than country average.

Community life in Vágur

Vágur is known for its community life, with a high number of local associations and clubs within sports, culture and other leisure time activities. There are many large social events during the year, attracting not just local residents, but people from the entire island as well as from the rest of the country.

KLAKSVÍK

Klaksvík is with its 4.819 inhabitants (by 1st of January 2010) the second-largest town in the Faroe Islands. Klaksvík is situated in the northern part of the country, on the Northern Isles (Norðoyggjum).

Klaksvík is commonly known as the fishing capitol of the Faroe Islands. The industrial life in Klaksvík has for the last century also been dominated by fisheries and fisheries related industries. But with the subsea tunnel connection to the island of Eysturoy (the tunnel opened in 2006), Klaksvík is today a town with road-access to the “mainland”, which also gives the local population new opportunities.

The mainland – one functional region

With the subsea tunnels to Klaksvík and to the island of Vágar (with the airport) 85 percent of the Faroese population is now connected by roads. The drive from Klaksvík to Tórshavn is approximately a one hour drive, which also makes it possible to commute from Klaksvík to Tórshavn. This also means that Klaksvík is part of one larger functional region, giving people in Klaksvík the opportunity to commute for a wide range of jobs, commodities and services in the capitol areas. But this has also given people outside Klaksvík the option to commute to Klaksvík for jobs, commodities and services.

No population growth in Klaksvík

Klaksvík had is strong era from the years after the Second World War and up until the mid 1980s, with large expansions within the fishing industry on land as well as regarding fishing ships. But since the mid 1980s Klaksvík has not really had any growth in population. The economic crises in the early 1990s are clearly visible in the population figures. In the first years of the new millennium Klaksvík experienced a small growth in population, since then the population has stabilized and also declined.

This also means that the new subsea tunnel to Klaksvík has not had any real positive effect, as the island of Vágar experienced when the subsea tunnel to the island opened in December 2002.

Population in Klaksvík 1950 -Nov. 2010 6.000

1984, 4.847 Nov. 2010, 4.812 5.000 2000, 4.781 4.000 1971, 4.361 1953, 3.430

3.000

2.000

1.000

Figure 2. Population in Klaksvík 1950 – Nov. 2010 (Hagstova Føroya).

During the last 2-3 decades the changes in the population figures have also resulted in some demographic changes in Klaksvík. In 1985 the population in Klaksvík was 4.959, with 48 percent women and 52 percent men. In 2010 the percentage had changed to 47 percent women and 53 percent men, which is higher than the country average.

In 1985 27 percent of Klaksvík’s population was below 16 years of age, in 2010 only 22 percent were in this age group (1 percent less than country average). In the same period the proportion of people 67 years and older had grown from 9 to 14 percent, compared to country average, which increased from 10 to 13 percent in the same period.