Diverse methodological approaches to a Circumpolar multi-site case study which upholds and responds to local and Indigenous community research processes in the Arctic.

This paper outlines the methodological approaches to a multi-site Circumpolar case study exploring the impacts of COVID-19 on Indigenous and remote communities in 7 of 8 Arctic countries. Researchers involved with the project implemented a three-phase multi-site case study to assess the positive and negative societal outcomes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in Arctic communities from 2020 to 2023. The goal of the multi-site case study was to identify community-driven models and evidence-based promising practices and recommendations that can help inform cohesive and coordinated public health responses and protocols related to future public health emergencies in the Arctic. Research sites included a minimum of 1 one community each from Canada (Nunavut,) United States of America (Alaska), Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland. The approaches used for our multi-site case study provide a comprehensive, evidence-based account of the complex health challenges facing Arctic communities, offering insights into the effectiveness of interventions, while also privileging Indigenous local knowledge and voices. The mixed method multi-site case study approach enriched the understanding of unique regional health disparities and strengths during the pandemic. These methodological approaches serve as a valuable resource for policymakers, researchers, and healthcare professionals, informing future strategies and interventions.

COVID-19 and local community resilience in the Westfjords of Iceland.

Remote Arctic communities have often been depicted as being particularly vulnerable to the challenges of disasters, with their location and lack of infrastructure exacerbating risk. This study explores the characteristics of local resilience in the Arctic using the case study of the communities of the north-western Westfjords. A total of 42 semi-structured interviews were carried out with various community members, seeking to uncover the features of inbuilt resilience that contribute to successes and vulnerabilities. These were transcribed, coded, and categorised in relation to an integrated framework for assessing community resilience in disaster management, which groups topics via the themes of environmental, social, governance, economic, and infrastructure. All themes played a role in the success of local coping strategies, with easy access to the natural environment central to physical and mental well-being. Despite this, vulnerabilities of the community were evident, including insufficient local healthcare workers during a severe COVID-19 outbreak in a care home, the absence of a local quarantine hotel, and insufficient information in foreign languages for non-natives of Iceland. The general trend of following rules and expert advice was demonstrative of strong social capital, with locals trusting those in charge, nationally and locally, to manage the pandemic.

Public health restrictions, directives, and measures in Arctic countries in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Beginning January of 2020, COVID-19 cases detected in Arctic countries triggered government policy responses to stop transmission and limit caseloads beneath levels that would overwhelm existing healthcare systems. This review details the various restrictions, health mandates, and transmission mitigation strategies imposed by governments in eight Arctic countries (the United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, and Russia) during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, through 31 January 2021s31 January 2021. We highlight formal protocols and informal initiatives adopted by local communities in each country, beyond what was mandated by regional or national governments. This review documents travel restrictions, communications, testing strategies, and use of health technology to track and monitor COVID-19 cases. We provide geographical and sociocultural background and draw on local media and communications to contextualise the impact of COVID-19 emergence and prevention measures in Indigenous communities in the Arctic. Countries saw varied case rates associated with local protocols, governance, and population. Still, almost all regions maintained low COVID-19 case rates until November of 2020. This review was produced as part of an international collaboration to identify community-driven, evidence-based promising practices and recommendations to inform pan-Arctic collaboration and decision making in public health during global emergencies.

Extended producer responsibility's effect on producers' electronic waste management practices in Japan and Canada: drivers, barriers, and potential of the urban mine.

Electronic waste is the fastest-growing domestic waste stream globally, continuously outstripping projections. With increasing ubiquity of complex computing, many non-renewables are contained in end-of-life electronics, creating a vast urban mine, potentially hazardous, depending on treatment. The aim of this study is to compare how Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy is applied in two case countries, Japan and Canada, the practical implications of EPR policy design on producer operations, and how EPR affects electronic waste management improvements in each case. These cases share international obligations for electronic waste management but employ contrasting EPR policies. These policies are widespread in both cases, yet are not presided over by larger, regional obligations. Therefore, country-level interviews with electronic waste management stakeholders focusing on how EPR regulation affects producer practice were conducted. The physical application of EPR, as seen in Japan, drives design changes by producers intending to simplify downstream treatment, while financial responsibility in Canada, creates greater concern with cost-savings for producers, complicating end-of-life processing. EPR implementation, along with specific geographical factors, also create contrasting resource recovery results between countries. Regulation primarily drives EPR implementation in both countries, which is consistent with the literature. This study presents new drivers and barriers, namely pre-emptive legislation, and no incentive to improve, classifying the Japanese and Canadian systems as suffering from externalities on an insular system, and lack of harmonization, respectively. This research addresses a gap in comparative studies across regions of physical and financial EPR effects on producer practice.