From Utopia to Dystopia: Interviews in Iceland About the Future Amid Climate Change

Abstract

Studies at the intersection of climate change and futures research are needed. In response, we interviewed Icelanders (n = 63) to understand individuals’ visions of the future. Linguistic analysis revealed that participants expressed themselves informally with moderate confidence, high authenticity, and a negative tone. Deductive thematic analysis revealed three overarching visions of the future: (1) a utopian future characterized by environmental and social harmony where people return to nature; (2) a stable future reminiscent of today with improved infrastructure, connectivity, and continued sustainability and adaptation practices that maintain a rural lifestyle; and (3) a dystopian future marked by climate disruptions, overpopulation, and new environmental hazards requiring more emergency management resources alongside cultural barriers to adaptation that lead to the decay of infrastructure. The findings underscore the need to understand community-specific values and concerns for developing culturally sensitive and sustainable climate change adaptation strategies.

1. Introduction

The Earth has warmed more than one degree Celsius (or approximately two degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880 due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide [1]. Climate change will continue to be one of our most pressing global challenges requiring societies and ecosystems to adapt to local climate change impacts induced by a warming climate [2]. Common climate change impacts include increased air and water temperatures, sea level rise and coastal erosion, and heat waves [3]. These and other impacts can cause havoc on societies and ecosystems, resulting in disasters if not mitigated, planned, and prepared for. Indeed, since 2000 alone, nearly 16,000 natural and technological disasters have occurred [4].

In what follows, we review the literature on climate change adaptation, which refers to the adjustments people make to continue with their lives amid external changes in the climate and environment. We also review the literature on futures research. This literature is important in the context of climate change because it calls for a focus on future conditions, pointing to areas of research needs. Finally, we make the case for climate change adaptation futures research. Namely, combining insights from both climate change adaptation and the futures literature can couple the day-to-day lived experience of coping with change with best-fit adaptation strategies.

Building on this foundation, our study is rooted in interviews with residents of northern Iceland. Here, residents are part of social–ecological systems marked by connections to the environment as well as increasing exposure and risks in the face of climate change impacts. While many climate change planning efforts use scenarios or projections, they often emphasize expert-driven approaches. In contrast, our use of informal, place-based conversations about the year 2100 centers cultural, emotional, and identity-driven dimensions of adaptation strategies that can be underrepresented in more technical or policy-focused future-oriented studies.

1.1. Climate Change Adaptation

People worldwide are adapting to the impacts of climate change [5]. Whether proactive or reactive, climate change adaptation is a socio-cultural process [6] that refers to the tangible (i.e., hard or physical) and intangible (i.e., soft or social) adjustments people and societies make in response to or in anticipation of climate change impacts [7,8]. For example, one study in Iceland found that an economy featuring whaling shifted to whale-watching, proactively preserving cultural identity while adapting to the needs of changing environmental, climatic, and social conditions [9]. Meanwhile, another study cited glacier tour operators using an ad hoc “wait and see” approach to adaptation, highlighting a more reactive strategy [10].

Adaptation is also primarily framed as a local issue, particularly when compared to mitigation, thus necessitating local action [11]. Yet, problematically, our understanding of the motivations and methods for conducting such local adaptation still needs to be improved [12,13].

Despite its challenges, adaptation research is essential because climate change impacts will continue to threaten vulnerable natural and cultural systems disproportionately [14,15]. Adaptation is also influenced by “values, perceptions, processes and power structures within society” ([16], p. 349) as well as other factors (e.g., economic, technological) [17], requiring a holistic approach to research and action. While adaptation needs are urgent, we must also take time to prevent future maladaptation and unjust actions, which may do more harm than good [8,18].

Studies from environmental psychology and behavioral science confirm the influence of emotional and cognitive factors in shaping adaptation behavior. For example, fear, anxiety, hope, and fatalism have been found to influence individuals’ willingness to respond to threats in the environment [19,20,21]. Studies have also shown that cognitive biases can constrain long-term thinking and anticipatory adaptation due to optimism bias or temporal discounting [22,23]. Furthermore, studies have shown that identity, place attachment, and perceived self-efficacy are strong motivating factors in an individual’s adaptive responses [24,25]. Together, these findings underscore the need for research that moves beyond a technical focus on infrastructure and policy to the psychological and affective factors that shape risk perception and visions of the future. We contribute to this scholarship by representing participants’ candid, informal, and emotional reflections on the future, providing a view into the cultural and emotional factors underlying adaptation.

1.2. Futures Research

Futures research, or futures studies, systematically explores potential futures to enhance decision-making in areas like planning and policy [26]. This field aims to raise awareness of our possible futures, considering history, chance, and human decisions [27]. Futures studies formally began in the 1950s with the establishment of the RAND Corporation, a think tank dedicated to ongoing futures research [28], and the launch of the journal Futures in 1968 [29], among other activities [30].

Initially driven by practical concerns in business and government, such as consultancy, the foundational research in futures studies often reflected Western knowledge, overshadowing emancipatory traditions and marginalizing diverse perspectives [31,32,33]. However, the field has since expanded to focus on critical research and social needs [33,34]. Over time, the focus of futures studies has also shifted from predicting to shaping futures [35,36,37].

Envisioning the future is now foundational to the field, typically conducted through methods like scenario planning, questioning, and creative visualization [38]. Scenarios often envision the future as a best-case outcome derived from the questioning process, leading to creative visualizations [39,40,41]. Similarly, this study focuses on possible or alternative futures from an interpretive cultural approach rooted in postcolonial and post-industrial perspectives to glean society’s potential adaptation pathways [42].

1.3. The Need for Climate Change Adaptation Futures Research

Climate change adaptation initiatives focused on scenario planning are rooted in sustainable development and ambiguities associated with terms such as resilience [43]; frequently, key term definitions vary based on the context or interpretation, making the creation of effective adaptation initiatives less consistent and cookie-cutter. These conceptual challenges mirror those other fields face [36]. Despite these challenges, rapid climatic and environmental change calls for studies at the intersection of climate change adaptation and futures research.

When rooted in action research and hope theories, futures research can encourage participant empowerment and transformation even when faced with inevitable ambiguities [42,44]. Futures visioning can also increase climate change literacy and support adaptation planning [45,46]. Furthermore, scenario planning and visioning can play a role in shifting mindsets and carving space for dialogue [47]. For example, Nalau and Cobb state, “future visioning and scenario planning exercises are now accepted key methods in engaging stakeholders in co-production and co-development of futures in a changing climate” [46]. As such, futures studies can offer generalizable knowledge on adaptive practices that explore futures amid a changing climate [48].

Despite the promise of research bridging futures studies’ theories and methods with climate change adaptation approaches, only some such studies exist [42,44]. Thus, in response to the need for studies at the intersection of climate change adaptation and futures research, this study aims to understand individuals’ visions of the future amid climate change. Namely, we asked the following: (1) what are individuals’ visions of the year 2100?

The individuals in this study are residents of northern Iceland, many of whom live in small coastal villages with tight-knit communities and deep connections to the environment experiencing rapid environmental, social, and economic changes. We invited these individuals to participate not because they are policy-makers or technical experts but because they are community members who offer a lens into the cultural, emotional, and place-based identities shaping adaptation. This allows for emotional and cognitive complexities, cultural and identity-based attachments, and imaginative visions to be revealed, moving beyond technical planning to speak to the long-term hopes and anxieties that could otherwise be downplayed when using a strictly technical approach to anticipatory adaptation. This study contributes to the scientific literature by highlighting how place-based, informal conversations can reveal adaptation priorities, offering insights relevant to other rural, high-latitude, or culturally grounded contexts.

2. Methods and Materials

Respondents (n = 63) engaged in a semi-structured interview about the future in the sub-Arctic study area. Once transcribed, several analyses distilled respondents’ visions. The study area and methods of analysis are described below.

2.1. Study Area

This study took place in north central Iceland, the second-most populous region of Iceland. Despite being nearly carbon-neutral relative to the rest of the world, Iceland, like many Arctic and sub-Arctic areas, is facing the brunt of climate change impacts [49]. Air, land, and water temperatures are increasing [50]. The seasonality of weather conditions is changing [51]. Land- and marine-based species’ behaviors, habitats, and health are shifting [52]. These and other climate change impacts [3] require adaptation to continue the functioning of current systems in place [53].

North central Iceland used to have an economy based on agriculture and fishing, though now it also has vital service and tourism sectors. Akureyri is the primary population center, second only to the capital of Reykjavík. Many smaller villages and hamlets sprinkle the coastlines of the Eyjafjörður Fjord, a primary feature of the study area. This is one of the longest and deepest fjords in the country, promoting a thriving port. Like elsewhere in the Arctic, in this study area, temperatures are warming, and climate change impacts are beginning to take hold, necessitating adaptation [49,54].

2.2. Data Collection and Sample

Once in the field, participants were given a consent form and gave their informed verbal consent to participate in this study. Namely, we conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with Icelanders of north central Iceland in the summers of 2022 and 2023. Participants were found via random encounters, resulting in interviews conducted in various environments, from cafes and cultural centers to garages and boat launches. The interviews lasted an average of twenty minutes and were conducted in either English or Icelandic with the help of a local interpreter. Participants were not given any information about this study before the interview.

This paper focuses on only one of the few questions participants were asked, which came at the end of a short series of questions centered on observed environmental changes, risk perception, and sense of place. We asked: Imagine it is the year 2100. People and environments are thriving. What do you see? How is it different from now? How should we achieve or avoid this future? Every participant was given a pseudonym to maintain privacy, and demographic and personally identifiable information was not collected.

In addition to conducting semi-structured interviews for data collection, supplemental contextual data were collected. Namely, immediately following the interviews, we recorded the date, start and end times, average air temperature and weather conditions (e.g., sunny vs. rainy and windy vs. still conditions), the setting conditions of the interview (e.g., indoor vs. outdoor and quiet vs. loud), and the day and the time the interview was conducted. These data were gathered to control for context-dependent conditions that may have informed the nature of participants’ responses.

Ultimately, 63 individuals participated, half from the municipality of Akureyrarkaupstadur. Interviews took place between 08:48 and 22:50, with the average time of day being 13:57 (1:57 PM). Almost half of all interviews occurred on the weekend. The temperature ranged from 5 to 14 degrees Celsius, averaging 10 degrees Celsius (or approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit). Half of the interviews were conducted under sunny skies with still winds, and it was windy and raining during 10% of the interviews. Nearly 75% of interviews occurred indoors, and over 90% were conducted while stationary (i.e., sitting or standing in place).

2.3. Data Analysis

First, the audio recordings of interviews were transcribed. Interviews conducted in Icelandic were translated by a native speaker on our research team, ensuring the accurate preservation of both linguistic nuance and participant sentiment. Personal information given, if any, was redacted. Then, the research team conducted an iterative, inductive thematic qualitative analysis [55] using Dedoose (https://www.dedoose.com/ accessed on 20 January 2025), a qualitative analysis software. Then, transcriptions were cleaned of all text except for participant voice for analysis using the linguistic analysis software Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC-22) [56] (https://www.liwc.app/ accessed on 20 January 2025) to discern meaning across emotional, social, and cognitive contexts [57].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Visions of the Future: How Do We Talk About It?

Participants were asked to imagine that it was the year 2100 and people and ecosystems were thriving. They were also asked to describe what they saw and explain how this envisioned future differs from now, including what actions should be taken to achieve or prevent their vision. Transcriptions containing participants’ descriptions of the future were analyzed using the software LIWC. Below, we present the results of the LIWC text analysis for (1) analytical thinking, (2) clout, (3) authenticity, and (4) emotional tone. We also present (5) the most commonly used words and their frequencies.

(1)

Within LIWC, the analytical thinking variable gauges how individuals use language that indicates formal, logical, and hierarchical thought processes [58,59]. Participants’ analytical thinking scores ranged from 1 to 46 and averaged 13, suggesting a relatively informal, natural thought process when speaking about the future. This may be partly due to the informal nature of the interviews: they were conducted on the spot, in place, with folks dressed casually and speaking informally. Participants may have put little thought into their responses; instead, they responded with whatever came to mind. This is important because it shows participants were open enough with the researchers to speak without much filtering of their thoughts, underscoring the importance of relationship-building in conducting social science fieldwork.

(2)

The clout variable refers to the relative social status, (self-)confidence, or leadership people display through writing or talking [59,60]. Participants’ clout scores ranged from 1 to 96 and averaged 44. These results suggest participants expressed moderate confidence and leadership in their responses. This is important because it provides insight into the interview’s overall positive social dynamics, communication style, and adherence to cultural norms.

(3)

The authenticity score refers to how people speak [59]. When people reveal themselves authentically or honestly, they speak more spontaneously and do not self-regulate or filter their words [61,62]. A low authenticity score reflects something like a prepared speech, whereas a high authenticity score reflects a conversation between close friends. Participants’ tone scores ranged from 37 to 99, averaging 72, suggesting that people expressed a high degree of authenticity in their responses. This means the interviewers built enough rapport for participants to feel comfortable being honest and open, showing responses were given without deception, potentially reducing noise in the dataset.

(4)

The tone score puts positive and negative tone dimensions into a single summary variable [59]. Participants’ tone scores ranged from 1 to 98 and averaged 37, suggesting that participants expressed themselves with a relatively negative tone. This is important because the question asked participants to describe a vision of the future where people and ecosystems thrive, which should have necessitated a more positive tone. Instead, participants may have responded negatively because they could not envision this hopeful future. A lack of an optimistic vision is crucial because it may mean people are less likely to act in anticipation of the impacts of climate change.

(5)

The top ten words used when describing the future were as follows: people (n = 124), see (n = 63), years (n = 51), mean (n = 42), things (n = 38), nature (n = 33), Iceland (n = 27), places (n = 27), live (n = 26), and change (n = 26). These results reflect that participants focused primarily on the social aspects of climate change and hazard risk (people). These results also reaffirm the goal of the question, which was to envision the future (see). They also show that some meaning-making occurred (mean), e.g., “I mean”, and “this means”. Furthermore, these results refer to the importance of objects and materials (things) and put the environment and nature at the forefront of the participant’s focus (nature). Placing responses within the national context (Iceland), these results also refer to the role of concepts like place (places) and home (live) in the formation of future visioning. Finally, these results show that the concepts of uncertainty, anticipation, and change were also at the forefront of participants’ minds (change), which was expected given the nature of the question. These results show that participants expressed prominent visions of living in Iceland’s material, social, and ecological future amid place-based changes.

It is also worth noting that, while not the central focus of our analysis, contextual conditions such as temperature, weather, and time of day may have subtly influenced the interviews. Most interviews were conducted during calm weather with average temperatures around 10 °C. Conversely, a minimal number of interviews conducted during inclement weather resulted in shorter, more hurried responses, which may explain some of the variability in interview tone and length.

3.2. Visions of the Future: What Does It Look Like?

Following linguistic analysis, transcriptions were analyzed with an inductive thematic approach using the qualitative analysis software Dedoose to determine the potential futures the participants envisioned. Below, we present the results of this analysis as vignettes of three potential futures that emerged from participant responses: Future A, a utopia; Future B, an extension of today; and Future C, a dystopia.

Most participants needed some time to formulate their thoughts, often stating it was difficult or “just impossible” to answer the question. For example, one participant noted, “I haven’t thought about it before because then I am gone [passed away]”. Participants were required to reflect seriously on the future by answering the question. For example, one participant posited, “Maybe I should pay more attention, to everything”. The fact that many participants had not considered the future is a critical finding, as anticipatory adaptation requires forethought.

3.2.1. Future A: A Utopia

One of the participants’ visions is of a peaceful, hopeful, utopian future: Future A. Indeed, as two participants stated, “The future is gonna be bright” and “I see a better future”. In Future A, participants see beautiful visions: the environment is lush and accessible, the population is healthy and connected, economic opportunities are plentiful, and hazards are well managed and respected. These primary aspects of Future A are presented below.

Regarding the environment, participants envisioned more significant swaths of healthy plant and animal habitats and healthy animal populations. Participants also spoke about the relationship between people and the environment. For example, one participant stated, “I think we go back to nature”. Another participant who shared a similar thought: “People will start sensing nature all around them. Like, we will want to have it—a good relationship between man and nature and everything”. Participants saw this human–environment relationship “grow together” through increased land conservation and preservation. They also saw this relationship blossom through increased participation in outdoor recreational and cultural activities, particularly opportunities for youth, thus developing respect for nature.

In Future A, participants envision better infrastructure, including improvements to existing tunnels and the addition of tunnels, such as from Dalvik north to Ólafsfjörður. Participants spoke about the reduced hazard risk that would come from improvements in such infrastructure and mobility, mainly in the context of improving social, political, and economic connections. For example, when speaking about improving the tunnel systems, one participant stated, “What I would like to see is that we will have better communication with each other, those small towns here…. and do more things together. Whether it’s schools or work together. Whether it’s schools or work, I mean, there’s politics working better together”. Participants also spoke about the improvements to mobility that these infrastructure changes will provide, such as the introduction of “flying cars”. These are important findings because they show participants highly value local infrastructure, connection, and mobility, knowledge of which can aid in focusing adaptation strategies.

In Future A, tourism is seen as “good” because it brings economic opportunity and diversity to the area, particularly in the summer months. A participant elaborated, stating, “I mean six years ago there was literally no no traffic here, no tourists at all, [whereas now], we get a lot of people over the summer from the tourists”. Indeed, economic opportunity and livelihoods are the focus of many participants’ visions of the future. For example, one participant stated, “Here, this is clean. You have the fish, you have the sheeps, you have the veggies, you have everything to thrive compared to in the mainland of Europe. This is the hotspot for surviving with your own production”. This is an important finding because it showcases a possible future rooted in diverse economic opportunities that embraces traditional livelihoods, reminding us that adaptations do not necessitate a loss of values.

Future A is hopeful, and it is full of realism. Many participants with positive visions of the future still saw hazards within that future. For example, when speaking about avalanches, one participant stated, “It’s exactly partly those hazards in these places that’s made me fall in love with the place; that’s why I’m still here. In a way, it’s beautiful and fascinating. You wouldn’t have this kind of places without those hazards. And, if you just learn to play with them, you could take yourself to amazing spots”.

The quote above shows how the participant’s local place identity features hazards. This speaks to the importance of human–environment relationships in the development of hazardscapes. In this case, these relationships have allowed for the continued use and management of “risky places” that preserve the characteristics of local place identities. This is important because a strong sense of local place identity has been shown to inhibit the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies [54], meaning adaptations may be more likely to be adopted if they focus on maintaining place identity.

Overall, Future A features a lush and accessible environment, a healthy and connected population, plentiful economic opportunities, and well-managed and respected hazards.

3.2.2. Future B: A Future Reminiscent of Today

Participants’ second vision of the future is reminiscent of today: Future B. As one participant stated, “I think it will be pretty similar, actually. It has been so for quite a while”. Future B is perceived as a thriving present day that is stable, practical, and connected. These primary aspects of Future B are presented below.

In Future B, the population size is similar to that in the year 2022 and 2023, and the same plant and animal species remain, albeit there are more of them. The participants acknowledged the effort required to achieve this vision. For example, one participant cited the helpfulness of sustainable practices fishers use to conserve fish populations. A second participant stated, “How I envision the future is like, a lot of like trees and nature around. Like even in a really big residential area. A lot of green”. Another participant agreed, anticipating “more trees and more flowers”.

Complementarily, when speaking about the potential for a population boom, one participant stated, “I don’t want it to change, you know? I don’t want more people, more choice, you know? It’s fine like this”. This participant and many others expressed a strong attachment to the local place and place identity, expressing a desire to maintain a “rural, small-town feel”, unimpeded by population changes. One participant elaborated on how to best support this place identity via the development of place-based human–environment relationships, “I feel I have the choice to be in a way timeless; the old buildings give me the feeling of being in my own time. And, I often feel that it’s good for people to come down here and get this feeling because, here, there’s nothing pushing you—’buy this’, ‘do this.’ It’s just you and the sound of the sea, and that’s something you can have with yourself. I think we should take much more care of those things. Here, it’s possible”.

From these comments above, we infer that the population size and plant and animal species composition may influence participants’ place identity to some degree. This is important because a sense of place can impact an individual’s climate change adaptation willingness and behavior [24,54]. Thus, the desire to maintain a “small-town feel” should be central to considerations when developing climate change adaptation strategies. Aligning community values to proposed adaptations can maintain, strengthen, and take advantage of people’s connection to place identity.

Furthermore, in Future B, infrastructure maintenance is improved, leading to the continued functioning of current systems. This maintenance’s primary and practical focus was on public infrastructure, including tunnels, roadways, and communications. For example, one participant stated, “We have to build better roads between towns”. Another said, “It’s great to have a good connection to the internet, and I think that’s going to be more important in the future”. These comments are important because they show the participant’s desire to be physically and virtually connected—factors that may also be essential for effective adaptation [6,63].

Regarding Future B, participants also pointed out the positive adaptation efforts already underway in Iceland. For example, one participant stated, “Our houses are heated up from springs, and we conduct hydroelectricity”. Others echoed the importance of the continued and expanded use of green energy. For example, one participant stated, “You see right now just the changes with the cars, ships, and everything. Everything is going electric, trying to make everything more environmental. So, it [the future] can’t be that bad”. These comments show participants’ desire to maintain sustainable energy practices.

Furthermore, one participant noted the potential for expanded green energy systems through the siting of windmills, stating, “I would love to see some of those in places around here, I mean, it’s not like we don’t get weather!” Other participants commented on the potential for expanding the use of gray water, developing rotating solar mirrors, and designing eco-housing. Taken together, in Future B, the current infrastructure, such as tunnels and green energy systems, is maintained and improved for increased efficiency, sustainability, and social connection.

Also in Future B, livelihoods rooted in agriculture and fishing will continue successfully while the economic system develops. The participants’ desire to diversify and celebrate current financial systems and livelihoods points to avenues for potential adaptation strategies. For example, one participant stated, “It might also be possible to cultivate more and do more farming”. Simultaneously, another participant envisioned more “computerized jobs”. Together, this points to the participants’ optimistic visions regarding the future of Iceland’s economic system and the continued functioning of traditional livelihoods, such as livestock farming.

Participants also noted the need to buy more local goods, “live slow”, and make more proactive sustainable changes; when elaborating on this sentiment, one participant stated, “We’re willing to learn, but maybe not to do the changes on our own”. This may point to the need for support from higher levels of agency, such as local government, to uphold local sustainable adaptation practices.

Like Future A, Future B involves respecting hazards to enjoy risk-prone places. “You don’t have to avoid the place; just avoid the hazard”, states one participant. This is important because it shows that the participants’ risk awareness is heightened, which may lead to a more proactive than reactive implementation of climate change adaptation strategies.

Future B resembles today’s reality and represents a stable, practical, and connected future.

3.2.3. Future C: A Dystopia

When asked to envision a thriving future, participants’ visions ranged from dreamscapes to hellscapes; some could not imagine a hopeful future. Indeed, “I think it [the future] will be worse”, stated one participant. Participants’ third and final vision was of a dystopian future: Future C. This future is marked by climate change impacts, a population boom or bust, and failing capacities and infrastructure.

One prominent feature of Future C was more pronounced negative climate change impacts and varying weather patterns that affected people, ecosystems, and infrastructure, creating a more dangerous environment. “At first, the weather was better because of global warming”, stated one participant. Now, there are fears of more pronounced and new hazards, including severe winds and storms, slides (e.g., avalanches, rockfalls), and impacts associated with melting glaciers. For example, one participant stated, “[The hazards] may be a little bit worse”. This is important because it shows that participants acknowledge the climate change-induced impacts underway in their area, knowledge that may motivate an individual to adapt.

Future C is also marked by a dramatically smaller or larger population that disrupts the town’s functioning and identity. As shown through multiple participants’ sentiments, there are strong feelings between individuals and their environment, often creating a desire to preserve the environment the way it is. When discussing the potential for dramatic population change, one participant stated, “It’s not going to be the cute town anymore”. Indeed, others echoed this sentiment, envisioning tourism and extractive companies overtaking the area, climate change impacts taking hold, and nature being destroyed. One participant elaborated, “If everybody thinks like me and not so much about nature and stuff, [the future is] gonna be worse”.

Furthermore, more people bring additional strains on existing resources, such as emergency response operations. For example, one participant stated, “I’m in the rescue team… And now there was four really bad accidents in one month instead of one a year or few years. It was much for everybody in the rescue team because we’re not used to seeing this”. This is important because adequate resource allocation and education campaigns are necessary to ensure emergency services meet higher demands amid an increasing population and tourism sector.

Future C also focuses on the unchanging and eventual demise of public infrastructure; risky roads, tunnels, bridges, and other public structures were a focus in this vision. For example, one participant stated, “I would like to see more of this morphing into, like, infrastructure to push people further away from using the personal cars. But… the rhetoric is not great”. This sentiment speaks to participants’ desires to see “more walkable”, bicycle-friendly infrastructure and the cultural barriers that may hinder such adaptations for sustainability.

Similarly, one participant stated a desire for a more eco-friendly environment, “I think it’s very much, you know, we [have to] change our mindset of how we live with it [climate change], both with recycling, but also just to waste less and buy much less, you know, it [the economy] is very capitalist”. When speaking about pollution related to single-use products, another participant elaborated, “We are spoiling the sea with plastic a lot. We can see that. You just have to go down to the beach here [to] see what is going on”. These findings reveal a need for infrastructural and socio-cultural changes to make strides toward sustainable adaptations, such as reducing plastic pollution.

Future C is also marked by less economic opportunity than the present day, with participants citing the need for “more working places”. For example, one participant stated, “Both these towns [Ólafsfjörður and Siglufjörður] had like a nice steady income because of the fisheries. The fisheries in Ólafsfjörður has just been reduced to like a small smoking factory. The smelters in Siglufjörður haven’t been fired up in years because the quota was just taken somewhere else because people with money know they have money; they don’t need to concern themselves with little folks”.

Compounding economic concerns, in Future C, access to housing is unstable. For example, one participant stated, “Because the country’s developing, the tourist industry’s developing, the fish industry is still going on, people are moving here. And here in this particular place is a problem with housing because there is, like, lots of summer houses which people don’t want to rent”. Other participants echo these concerns, citing the difficulty in finding a suitable place to rent or own. This is important because it speaks to the participant’s desire for a hopeful future to provide sufficient housing, which could be the focus of additional adaptation strategies.

As hinted above, much of the sentiment around Future C is rooted in fear and anxiety. When first envisioning the future, one participant stated, “It’s going to be different, but I’m not so sure it will be better”. Indeed, other participants stated they were “very scared for the future” and “always afraid” of climate change-induced hazards like sea level rise. This is important because fearful emotions can beget action [64]. For example, a participant reflected, “Where does the option stop of being this numb? Like, where is this point in your life where you actually, like, have to do something? Like, my actions actually matter?” This sentiment and others are tinged with fatalism and a desire for future direction. “How will our downfall be is a big question, or can we use new techniques [(i.e., adaptations)] to continue?”

Overall, Future C is a vision of gloom marked by climate change impacts, a population boom or bust, and failing capacities and infrastructure.

Above, we presented the results of a qualitative inductive thematic analysis as vignettes of three potential futures that emerged from participant responses: Future A, a utopia; Future B, an extension of today; and Future C, a dystopia. Together, these three visions provide us with an understanding of participants’ values and concerns informing their potential adaptation practices, placing this study at the intersection of climate change adaptation and futures research and providing possible avenues for developing culturally sensitive adaptation strategies.

4. Limitations

While every effort was made to conduct the best research possible, limitations remain. Some interviews were concise, while others were long, potentially favoring lengthier responses in the analysis due to the additional data present. However, codes ranged from one to ten per interview, averaging four codes, showing that all participants’ visions of the future were included. Furthermore, qualitative research is subjective, making it difficult to calibrate coding approaches between researchers [65], potentially skewing results. To mitigate this limitation as much as possible, the research team met weekly, and codes were iteratively updated. Also, due to the nature of the recruitment, interviews occurred at different places, dates, and times. For example, while most interviews were conducted in 2022, a few were conducted in 2023. This could have led to differences that would not have otherwise emerged if the interviews had all been conducted in one place. Language barriers also presented some difficulty, though the presence of a native Icelandic speaker largely mitigated this potential limitation.

Finally, while the research team noted broad observations about participants (e.g., estimated age range, perceived gender) to ensure diversity in recruitment, this information was not formally collected or used in analysis. We did this to engage a wide range of participants in a manner that respected their privacy and autonomy. This approach emphasized an open, low-pressure dialogue, as supported by the authenticity scores of the responses we received. While we see this as a strength in understanding broad cultural and community-level themes, we recognize that future studies could solicit more detailed participant profiling to explore individual-level factors influencing how individuals perceive and imagine the future.

5. Conclusions

This study provides an understanding of how individuals envision the future and what these visions reveal about their values, concerns, and potential adaptation practices in the face of climate change. By analyzing participants’ descriptions of the year 2100 through both linguistic and thematic lenses, we uncovered diverse perspectives on the future that ranged from utopian to dystopian scenarios.

As revealed through LIWC analysis, linguistic patterns suggest an informal yet genuine engagement with the interviewers and topic. Participants’ relatively low analytical thinking scores indicate a natural, unfiltered expression, while moderate clout scores reflect an even balance between confidence and leadership. High authenticity scores demonstrate participants’ comfort and openness, which are essential for gathering sincere insights, whereas the predominantly negative emotional tone underscores underlying apprehensions about the future. The frequency of words like “people”, “nature”, and “change” emphasizes a focus on social dynamics, environmental relationships, and the anticipation of transformation. Overall, the LIWC results revealed the overall tone, authenticity, and emotion of the interviews, while thematic analysis focused on the substance of participants’ imagined social–ecological futures.

The thematic analysis highlighted three distinct futures: a utopian Future A characterized by environmental and economic prosperity, a stable and practical Future B that largely mirrors the present day, and a dystopian Future C marked by climate change-induced disruptions and decaying infrastructure. In each potential future, participants acknowledged the presence of natural hazards as a core feature of their place identity, which suggests adaptations should accommodate risk-prone landscapes. For some participants, imagining the future was difficult or impossible, indicating a lack of anticipatory thinking—a critical skill for meaningful adaptation.

Together, linguistic and thematic findings reveal the emotional and cognitive complexity of envisioning the future in the context of climate change. This research shows how place-based narratives can reveal potential adaptation pathways for developing locally relevant and culturally sensitive strategies, highlighting the importance of infrastructure, human–environment relationships, and cultural and place-based identities. Ultimately, community participation in future visioning can reveal challenges and opportunities for fostering a thriving future for people and ecosystems.