When Europe shut down due to the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, Longyearbyen, the main settlement of Svalbard, was moving from a coal-based economy to one based on science and tourism. The remote location of the Svalbard archipelago in the High Arctic makes it an isolated, secure haven from the chaos worldwide. But this renders its population vulnerable should the virus come since there are neither facilities to care for the sick nor other nearby communities to help in case of need. Svalbard, with its special territorial status, is in a unique geopolitical situation where people are free to come and go. Longyearbyen is an inherently transient space with a highly mobile population. Based on interview narratives of participants' lived experiences in Longyearbyen during the pandemic (both in-person and online), this paper explores how forced and encouraged (im)mobilities impacted their individual life choices during the pandemic. Participants' stories revealed systemic inequalities and vulnerabilities in Longyearbyen that were heightened and exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. By combining minor theory with politics of mobility, this paper aims to add to the discussion within mobilities studies on how the personal, emotional responses to these situations are linked to decisions about mobility.

The Svalbard Treaty established Norway’s full and absolute sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard. At the same time, it also established special territorial status for the archipelago, providing nationals of all signatory nations equal access to its resources. During fieldwork in Longyearbyen, conducted as part of a bottom-up exploration of place in 2018, several recurring issues came up in the analysis of interviews with residents using grounded theory methodology. Two of these issues, sometimes linked and sometimes seen as separate, were a questioning of the legitimacy of the community and a sense of geopolitical vulnerability. These emerging categories led to a series of focus groups, conducted between December 2018 and November 2019, that was designed to explore the impacts and implications of the Svalbard Treaty through the articulation of residents’ lived experiences in Longyearbyen. This paper examines the findings that emerged within an Identity of Place framing that point to an inherent conflict between the Svalbard Treaty’s special territorial status and the possibility of establishing a fully functioning local democracy in Longyearbyen.

This paper explores the Arctic Imaginary and its impact on how the circumpolar region is perceived by people outside of the region. Whether as imagined by the tourist industry, in connection to climate change, or as part of a geopolitical agenda, the Arctic is often portrayed in a simplified, mono-story way. A biased, simplified view of the region limits a deeper understanding of the issues that are important to the people living there. By tracing the Arctic Imaginary through its various historical manifestations and comparing it with the reality of living in the circumpolar region, this paper aims to challenge our collective, projected, and romanticized images of the “Arctic.” By discussing how different guises of the Arctic Imaginary continue to “other” and simplify the complexities of the region, this paper will show how recent environmental discourse anchors the Arctic Imaginary in a new way. Viewing the Arctic as a place to be saved, a pure, pristine place in need of protection, imposes upon it an identity as an object of (white, male, colonial) desire.

No abstract

When the old power plant at Longyearbyen on Svalbard in the Arctic was decommissioned in 1983, the building was earmarked for demolition. However, the presence of asbestos made the cost of removal too high and the building remained closed for more than 35 years. Now, its fate is once again being examined. Ideas for its potential future include establishment as an industrial memorial, a site for cultural events, a tourist attraction and/or a monument “of fossilised time”. Questions of which past is to be remembered, which uses are acceptable, which materiality is to be kept – and in what condition – all permeate the project, which is called FOSSIL. This paper examines different aspects of the project from both a material perspective (Identity of Place) and a human perspective (place-identity), bringing up questions of politics of memory, museumification, and the desired and undesired facets of heritage that the project engages with as it shapes the power plant’s (re)incarnation.