Environmental change and its implications for older people

The Arctic traditionally has had a unique environment supportive of its natural eco-logical processes, which in turn sustain its living organisms. The transformation taking place in the region adversely impacts this life support system, with diverse implications for the human communities (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). The uniqueness of the Arctic environment figures in the culture, cultural tradition and traditionally held knowledge of its local and indigenous communities. Environmental impacts are driven by global warming resulting from the rather rapid changes in the Arctic climate. It is suggested that the rate of change is two to three times faster than elsewhere on the globe (Article 1; Rosentrater, 2005, p. 4; AMAP, 2002) The rise in temperature causes melting of both terrestrial and maritime ice sheets, resulting in numerous impacts, including loss of biodiversity (Shah, 2014), changes in physical infrastructures and changes in the health and wellbeing of the region’s population (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). For example, the shrinking of the sea ice and thawing of permafrost hamper traditional means of transportation, which have relied on predictable ice conditions.

Melting ice and more open waters, for example in the Arctic Ocean, offer new sea routes, a development that is giving rise to new forms of maritime economic activity.

Extraction of oil and gas along with an increase in ship traffic not only brings pollu-tion to the region, but also introduces invasive species detrimental to human health (Articles 1 and 2). Other sources of environmental concern are human activities such as mining and increased tourism. The environmental integrity of the Arctic is jeop-ardized by these various sources of pollution, which have other consequences as well, such as contamination of the food supply chain and food production (Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4). The articles point out that environmental change in the Arctic is affecting food harvesting areas, restricting the supply of traditional food. In regard to human health, traditional food forms part of a healthy diet; it is a cultural product as well and in some indigenous cultures has a spiritual function (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). A constant lack of traditional and locally harvested food increases consumption of imported western food, which in turn increases the incidence of cancer, obesity, diabetes and cardiovas-cular diseases among the population (Hossain et al., 2018; Beaumier, 2011; Bjerre-gaard and Jørgensen, 2008, p. 194; Jorgenson and Young, 2008, p. 291). The health of the Arctic population is also greatly influenced by broader environmental changes.

For example, climate change gives rise to both extreme cooling and extreme warming circumstances, which result in an increase in diseases, the most common of which are bronchitis, pneumonia (because of extreme cold) and other vector-borne infectious diseases, as well as hypothermia (Articles 1 and 2). Moreover, negative changes in

in-frastructure increase injuries and accidents among the population (Parkinson, 2010, p. 10; Mäkinen and Rytkönen, 2008, pp. 254–255). At the same time, infrastructural changes affect sanitation systems, which also has consequences for human health. Pol-lution from increased human activities not only results in chronic diseases, but also causes psychological stress, which may be manifested as social isolation and depression (Young et al., 2012; Haq et al., 2008, p. 19; Geller, 2005, pp. 1257–1262; Parkinson and Berner, 2009, p. 84).

As noted elsewhere in this chapter, creating age-friendly infrastructures in the Arctic relies on a number of factors. These include not only the presence of a suitable natural environment but also suitable human-built and social environments. Degradation of the natural environment, a frequent trend in the Arctic today, creates incentives to improve the human-built and social environments (Article 5).

My findings suggest that uncertainty concerning climatic conditions in the Arctic often creates vulnerability in the older population, as older persons tend to be relatively frail and are susceptible to health-related risks. Sparsely populated northern regions have traditionally benefitted from having a pristine environment. The population den-sity varies from county (municipality) to county, and it is estimated that in the rural areas of those counties it is less than one person per square mile (OECD Territorial Reviews: Sweden 2010; Young and Bjerregaard, 2008, p. 107). In Finland, Norway and Sweden only about 3.5 per cent of the total population live in the Arctic.

The lives of older people in the Arctic are greatly impacted by the social and hu-man-built environments (Article 5). Often, lack of access to suitable and affordable housing undermines the needs of older people when it comes to maintaining healthy living conditions (Wennberg, 2017, p. 185). My research suggests that the built en-vironment is part of society’s infrastructure, which provides readily accessible and affordable services that allow older people to gain opportunities to retain relationships with family, friends and neighbours (Article 5). Such an environment also ensures interactions and networks among older people so that their involvement in local and cultural activities is guaranteed for their social-cultural and psychological wellbeing.

Unfortunately, there is a housing problem for older persons living in sparsely populated northern regions (Wennberg, 2019, forthcoming and 2017).

In the Arctic, poor societal and physical infrastructure jeopardize the development required to ensure proper access to public services; hence development in the Arctic in general falls short of the OECD standard, according to which promotion of pub-lic services is a precondition for development in rural settings (Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5). Having said this, it is notable that the older population in the Nordic Arctic is privileged compared to that in other Arctic countries: it is well connected in terms of physical infrastructure/the human-built environment (Silventoinen and Lahelma, 2002, p. 253; OECD Rural Policy Reviews, Finland, 2008, pp. 14–30 and p. 147) and provided with relatively better public and social services. Nevertheless, small communities – and particularly the older people in them, who tend to live far away from service centres – face vulnerabilities because of the lesser availability and greater expense of services.

Public services have been shown to be less available in the north than in southern parts of the country. For example, health centres, post offices, supermarkets and care homes are usually situated in the main administrative centres, sometimes beyond the reach of many older persons (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). A recent study on northern Fin-land, Sweden and Norway stated that living should be secured in the north by enhanc-ing accessible health and medical services (Article 5; Prime Minister’s Office Finland, 2015, pp. 24–25). The research recommended creating a monitoring framework for

“new solutions based on telemedicine and e-health, the division of labour between cen-tral hospitals in the North, and the freedom for patients to go to the nearest hospital regardless of borders”.

My observations as well suggest that there should be readily available medical services. In interviewing some of the older respondents, I noted the need for more accessible services. For example, respondents from the village of Angeli (an older couple) mentioned their limited access to the health centre, post office and other services, which are situated in Ivalo, around 50 kilometres from their house. However, the couple expressed their happiness at being able to live in their own home with their eldest son, who was a reindeer herder. Their daughter lives in Inari – around 65 kilo-metres from the village - and often visits and takes care of them. Similar opinions were expressed by an informant living with her son in the village of Peltovuoma, which is 35 kilometres from the area’s central town, Hetta. However, most of the respondents from care homes in Rovaniemi, Ivalo and Hetta mentioned that they had to move to the facilities because their children had moved away to other cities (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Respondents from Sevettijärvi, 160 kilometres from Ivalo, mentioned that many of their neighbours have moved to Norway for work. Respondents in Jok-kmokk, Kittilä, Sevettijärvi and Inari said that they were concerned that their villages are almost dying without young people, whose leaving forced them to move into care homes.

Older people, especially women, who tend to live longer than men, “have diffi-culties accessing services important for their wellbeing since there is no transport to the places where commercial and social services of various kinds could be provided”

(Wennberg, 2017, p.185). If they opt to make use of non-residential services and facilities, however limited, older people must rely on others, either relatives or the home help provided by the municipalities. Maintaining proper services for older persons becomes expensive in the Arctic compared to other regions in the countries.

Furthermore, as indicated above, demographic changes adversely affect infrastruc-tural conditions, one example being out-migration of the young generation, which is threatening older people’s care in the Arctic as a whole (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5;

Hörnström and Roto, 2013; OECD Rural Policy Reviews, Norway, 2007; OECD Rural Policy Reviews, 2008, p. 147).