Policy Pathways Beyond the Shoreline

5. Estimating the cost of insularity

Abstract

Island regions’ isolation, small scale and limited connectivity drive higher transport, housing, living and public service costs, the “cost of insularity.” Using evidence from Croatia, Greece and Sweden, the chapter proposes a flexible analytical framework and toolkit to measure these costs and their underlying causes. It finds transport costs can exceed mainland benchmarks by just over 300% in some cases, local government spending per capita can be around 30-50% higher, and housing prices can be 75-130% higher in some island municipalities. It recommends improving connectivity, adopting targeted fiscal and infrastructure measures, and strengthening island-level data to better design policies. Lowering the cost of insularity is key for residents’ well-being and for broader national cohesion and inclusive growth.

Introduction: Addressing the cost of insularity

Islands contribute significantly to the cultural, environmental, and economic diversity of nations. However, their geographic isolation creates structural challenges that affect their competitiveness, service delivery, and quality of life. The concept of the “cost of insularity” captures the additional expenses and disadvantages that island regions face compared to mainland areas. These costs stem not only from geography, but also from institutional and market conditions shaped by it.

For policymakers, understanding these costs is essential. Insularity affects the daily lives of residents, the efficiency of local economies, and the effectiveness of government action. Transport and logistics costs are higher; access to markets and services is more limited; and the smaller scale of island economies often restricts competition, innovation, and employment opportunities. These conditions can lead to higher prices for consumers, lower productivity for firms, and greater fiscal pressure on governments delivering essential services across dispersed and often remote communities.

The result is that island residents may experience a lower standard of living and reduced access to quality services compared to their mainland peers. Governments must often invest more per capita to maintain equitable access to healthcare, education, utilities, and connectivity. Without deliberate policy attention, these additional costs risk reinforcing territorial inequalities and constraining the contribution of island regions to national development.

Importantly, many of these costs cannot be addressed by markets alone. They require targeted public action and co-ordinated investment in infrastructure, digital connectivity, service delivery, and institutional capacity, to reduce the disadvantages of insularity and unlock the full potential of island economies.

This chapter sets out to support policymakers in doing exactly that. It develops a framework for identifying and measuring the costs of insularity, drawing on existing research, new evidence, and econometric analysis. The framework distinguishes between geographic costs, such as transport and infrastructure needs, and institutional costs, such as administrative inefficiencies and limited integration with national systems. It is designed to be flexible and adaptable across countries, recognising differences in data, governance, and territorial organisation.

While this analysis draws on the experience of Croatia, Greece, and Sweden, its findings are relevant to all countries with inhabited islands or remote coastal territories. By quantifying the additional costs faced by island communities, the chapter aims to inform policies that promote economic efficiency, social inclusion, and regional equity.

Ultimately, reducing the cost of insularity is not only about supporting islands. It is about strengthening national cohesion and ensuring that no region is left behind in the pursuit of sustainable and inclusive growth.

Conceptual and analytical framework for measuring the cost of Insularity

Understanding the challenge

Insularity generates distinct structural costs that affect households, businesses, and governments. These costs arise from two interrelated sources:

• Geography, including physical isolation, low population density, and weak connectivity; and

• Institutions, encompassing the social, political, and governance systems shaped by island conditions.

Together, these factors interact to produce higher living costs, reduced competitiveness, and fiscal pressures in the delivery of public services. The new analytical framework aims to clarify these relationships, improve measurement precision, and inform more targeted and effective policy responses.

A new analytical framework

Building on existing academic research, empirical evidence, and stakeholder input from case studies in Croatia, Greece, and Sweden, the framework systematically links insularity costs to their underlying structural and institutional causes.

Each cost mechanism, such as geographic isolation, population size and density, institutional scale effects, land constraints, and connectivity, is represented by measurable empirical proxies (e.g. distance to mainland, population density, ferry frequency). These indicators enable comparative econometric analysis and quantification of how each factor contributes to higher costs.

The framework also emphasises:

• Attribution: distinguishing costs directly caused by insularity from those arising due to broader remoteness or unrelated economic factors;

• avoidance of double counting: recognising that the same cost may cascade through multiple actors (e.g. high housing costs affecting both households and employers); and

• policy targeting: identifying the root causes of high costs to guide structural, rather than purely compensatory, policy responses.

Evidence from previous studies

Empirical research in Europe consistently shows that island economies face higher costs and lower productivity than comparable mainland regions.

• Corsica: Business costs estimated to be around 10% higher than on the mainland.

• Sicily: GDP per capita estimated to be 7.4% lower due to insularity effects.

• Sardinia: The estimated “tax of insularity” equivalent to 18-36% of GDP per capita.

These findings reveal significant economic penalties linked to geographic isolation but also highlight methodological limitations, particularly omitted variables and the limited policy insight offered by GDP per capita as a proxy. Such aggregate measures obscure which sectors or population groups are most affected and provide limited guidance for targeted policy interventions.

The role of institutions and social structures

Beyond geography, institutional and social dynamics can amplify the costs of insularity. Research indicates that small-scale, highly interconnected island societies may experience:

• Lower institutional efficiency due to informality, overlapping roles, and limited enforcement capacity;

• reduced competition in political and economic spheres, increasing risks of clientelism and weak accountability; and

• slower innovation and reform due to strong social cohesion and resistance to change.

While these features can foster resilience and co-operation during crises, they may also contribute to higher long-term costs by constraining governance effectiveness and market efficiency. Importantly, these negative institutional effects tend to diminish on larger islands with populations exceeding roughly 500,000 residents.

Insights from stakeholders

Consultations with island stakeholders in Croatia, Greece, and Sweden confirmed and enriched the academic evidence. They identified particularly high costs in:

• Land use and housing, including high rents and limited availability;

• maritime transport for both people and goods;

• infrastructure development and maintenance;

• environmental management and disaster response; and

• provision of basic public services, especially education and healthcare.

A key insight from these interviews, largely absent from previous academic literature, is the importance of non-market and non-financial costs. These include the additional time, effort, and opportunity costs borne by governments and individuals in delivering or accessing essential services. Such costs affect welfare, productivity, and human capital formation, with significant long-term implications for economic performance and well-being.

The importance of island typology

Not all islands are affected equally. Factors such as remoteness, connectivity, geographic size, topography, and distance from major cities strongly influence the magnitude of insularity costs. The concept of “double insularity”, where residents must transit through another island to reach the mainland, illustrates how geographic configuration can compound disadvantage. Conversely, islands with bridge connections or very short travel distances experience less severe cost penalties.

Cost of insularity analyses should therefore distinguish between single, double and multiple insularity configurations, so that funding formulas, transport-equivalent mechanisms and service standards reflect the higher penalties borne by the most remote island chains. Recognising this variation enables policymakers to group islands by shared characteristics, improving the precision and fairness of funding allocations and policy design.

Linking costs to causes for better policy

The framework distinguishes between costs generated by island geography, island institutions, or a combination of both. It categorises their impacts across three main groups (e.g. households, businesses, and governments) and shows how initial costs can trigger secondary and cascading effects.

For instance, high transport costs influence household mobility, retail prices, and government transport subsidies simultaneously. Understanding these interlinkages allows policymakers to design responses that target root causes, such as improving connectivity, strengthening institutional capacity, or reforming housing markets, rather than simply compensating for higher prices.

This analytical framework provides a practical tool for governments and researchers to:

• Identify which costs are most affected by insularity and for whom;

• distinguish between structural and policy-contingent cost drivers;

• prioritise investments in connectivity, governance, and infrastructure; and

• support evidence-based territorial policies that promote equity and competitiveness.

Although developed through case studies in Croatia, Greece, and Sweden, the framework offers a scalable and internationally applicable model. It provides a foundation for any country with island or remote coastal regions to better understand, quantify, and mitigate the costs of insularity.

Methodological approaches and data for measuring the cost of insularity

Overview

The measurement of the cost of insularity (e.g. additional economic and social costs borne by island regions due to their geographic isolation), requires adaptable analytical approaches. This study, developed through case work in Croatia, Greece, and Sweden, provides a menu of methodological options applicable to any country seeking to quantify insularity costs. The approaches are designed to isolate the impact of insularity from other geographic and institutional factors, improve measurement precision, and inform more equitable territorial policies.

A flexible, multi-method approach

Because island data availability, administrative boundaries, and statistical systems vary widely across countries, no single econometric model can capture the full cost of insularity. To overcome these challenges, the study applies different functional forms in each country, demonstrating how a range of methods can be used depending on national data conditions.

The framework ensures analytical clarity by:

• Assigning each cost type (e.g. transport, housing, fiscal costs) to its primary underlying mechanism to prevent double counting; and

• Comparing islands with otherwise similar mainland territories, allowing the “island effect” to be isolated.

Analytical options for measuring insularity costs

The study tested and reviewed several complementary analytical approaches, each with distinct policy and data implications (Table 5.1).

Together, these approaches provide a flexible methodological toolkit. Countries can select the most suitable combination based on their research questions, administrative structure, and data availability.

Table 5.1. Analytical options for measuring insularity costs

Analytical Approach	Key Features	Policy Use
Descriptive statistics	Simple comparison of island and mainland averages across key indicators.	Provides broad overview where data or technical capacity are limited.
Transport cost estimator	Calculates additional travel and freight costs for island residents and firms.	Useful for assessing mobility penalties and subsidy needs.
Econometric analysis of specific cost types	Estimates cost differences for land, rent, infrastructure, and public service delivery.	Enables precise attribution of cost drivers (preferred where detailed data exist).
Econometric analysis of government expenditure	Measures public spending differences, particularly at local or municipal levels.	Reveals fiscal implications of insularity for service delivery.
Econometric analysis of GDP per capita	Compares economic performance of island vs. mainland regions.	Allows international comparability but provides limited policy granularity.

Potential for cross-country comparability

All approaches aim to compare island regions with equivalent mainland regions, controlling for size, remoteness, and other geographic factors. In principle, this makes a cross-country study of insularity costs feasible, but two major challenges must be addressed:

• Territorial scale and administrative differences, e.g. comparing small islands with 100 residents to large island regions like Sicily can obscure underlying cost patterns.

• Data availability and standardisation, island-level data are often scarce, outdated, or compiled using different national methodologies.

Despite these constraints, the study concludes that an international comparison of insularity costs is achievable if participating countries harmonise key variables and data structures.

The role of econometrics in isolating insularity effects

Econometric analysis provides a powerful way to disentangle the effects of insularity from other geographical determinants of economic activity, such as remoteness, topography, or land area. By controlling for these variables, econometric models can identify the additional cost burden specifically linked to physical disconnection from the mainland.

For example, higher transport costs on islands may result from ferry dependence rather than distance alone. Econometric estimation can separate these influences to reveal the “pure” effect of insularity.

Existing evidence is limited but instructive. Studies such as Del Gatto and Mastinu (2015), covering 474 regions in 22 countries, confirm a negative association between island status and GDP per capita, even after controlling for size and remoteness. However, GDP-based measures remain indirect indicators of cost and may overstate insularity effects due to omitted variables. Future research could expand this approach by integrating institutional, cultural, and technological factors alongside geography.

Country case applications (Illustrative)

While country-specific, these cases highlight general lessons for measurement and data design.

• Croatia: Rich island-level data enabled analysis of municipal expenditure as a proxy for government service costs. Using municipal rather than island units improved comparability and allowed control for factors such as land use, forest cover, and population density.

• Greece: Due to data gaps, analysis was conducted at the regional (TL3/NUTS3) level using GDP per capita as the dependent variable. Though indirect, this approach provides limited and inconclusive evidence: island regions are slightly positively associated with GDP per capita, while greater distance from Athens is consistently linked to lower GDP. This suggests that remoteness, rather than insularity per se, is the main drag on economic performance.

• Sweden: Comprehensive municipal data permitted focus on housing and transport costs, with a novel transport cost indicator combining fuel, ferry prices, and travel time. This method captures both financial and opportunity costs relevant to households, businesses, and governments.

Each approach demonstrates how methodological flexibility and consistent data design can uncover different dimensions of insularity costs.

Policy implications and next steps

The analysis provides a blueprint for countries and regions aiming to quantify and address the costs of insularity:

• Adopt a modular approach: Select analytical tools according to data availability and policy priorities rather than pursuing a single rigid model.

• Invest in island-level data systems: Regularly updated, comparable datasets are critical for credible measurement and international benchmarking.

• Control for non-island geographic factors: Ensure that remoteness, size, and topography are properly accounted for to isolate the true cost of insularity.

• Consider institutional and policy interactions: Recognise that observed costs (e.g. ferry prices, public expenditure) may partly reflect national policy choices rather than structural disadvantages alone.

• Encourage international co-operation: Align statistical definitions and territorial typologies to support cross-country comparisons and evidence-based regional policy.

Measuring the cost of insularity is both methodologically complex and policy-critical. This study demonstrates that a mix of descriptive, econometric, and modelling techniques, tailored to available data, can produce robust evidence of insularity’s impact on citizens, businesses, and governments.

By integrating these approaches and improving island-level data collection, countries can better understand how geographic isolation translates into economic cost, design targeted interventions, and promote more equitable and competitive regional development across island and remote territories.

Empirical evidence on the cost of insularity

Overview

Empirical analysis from Croatia, Greece, and Sweden provides consistent evidence that island regions face higher economic costs than comparable mainland regions. These additional costs manifest through higher public expenditure, transport costs, and in some cases, land and housing pressures.

Despite differing methodologies and data constraints, the findings are complementary and highlight common structural challenges of insularity. They confirm that island geography imposes tangible fiscal, social, and economic costs, while also illustrating that some cost types (e.g. tourism-related pressures) are shared with coastal territories.

Although data limitations prevent direct cross-country comparison, the results provide a solid empirical foundation for international policy learning and the development of standardised measures of insularity costs.

Croatia: higher public expenditure reflects structural service delivery costs

Key finding. Island municipalities in Croatia spend substantially more per capita than mainland municipalities, even after controlling for remoteness and geography.

• Descriptive evidence. Local government expenditure per capita is 54% higher in island municipalities than in mainland municipalities. Spending is particularly elevated for health (+161%), public order (+74%), housing (+73%), and subsidies (+66%). Island areas also have higher tourism intensity and a larger share of protected land, increasing fiscal pressures on local services.

• Econometric analysis. Regression results show that, after adjusting for geography and demography, island municipalities spend on average 29% more than similar mainland municipalities. When comparing islands to other coastal municipalities, differences narrow, suggesting that some additional costs stem from coastal conditions, such as tourism-driven service demand.

• Within-county analysis. Fixed-effects models confirm that island municipalities spend 12-27% more per capita than comparable municipalities in the same county. This finding implies that the fiscal burden of insularity persists even within similar administrative and regional contexts.

• Policy insight. Higher spending likely reflects both the intrinsic costs of service delivery in small, dispersed, and environmentally protected territories and the seasonal impacts of tourism. Policymakers could strengthen fiscal equalisation mechanisms to ensure adequate funding for essential services on islands and improve monitoring of efficiency and service outcomes to identify where costs are due to geography versus policy design.

Greece: insularity costs partly masked by tourism and regional aggregation

Key finding. Econometric evidence does not show a significant negative impact of insularity on GDP per capita, largely due to data aggregation and the offsetting influence of tourism.

• Descriptive results. Greek island regions have similar GDP per capita to mainland regions but far higher tourism intensity, hosting up to 70 overnight stays per inhabitant annually compared to 10 on the mainland. Population density is lower on islands, while population decline has been slower than on the mainland, reflecting stable housing demand.

• Econometric analysis. After controlling for geography, remoteness, and demography, the island dummy is positive but not statistically significant. This suggests that tourism-related income may offset the structural disadvantages of insularity in national-level GDP measures. Distance to Athens is the only variable consistently associated with lower GDP, confirming that remoteness, not insularity alone, drives much of the variation in economic performance.

• Complementary evidence:

  • Tourism concentration creates high seasonal infrastructure costs and congestion pressures.

  • Housing markets in popular islands (e.g. Cyclades, Lefkada) show high prices and rents, reflecting tourism demand rather than purely structural costs.

  • Skilled labour shortages and lower physician-to-population ratios (especially in the North and South Aegean) indicate persistent service delivery challenges and higher costs for labour-dependent sectors.

  • Maritime transport data confirm large cost variations across islands, with travel time and freight costs increasing sharply with distance.

• Policy insight. While GDP-based measures obscure insularity costs, sectoral data (transport, housing, and labour) reveal the underlying burdens. The transport equivalent compensation policy (2018-present) provides a model of how financial instruments can mitigate these burdens, particularly for small and remote islands. Future research should prioritise island-level data collection and integrate non-market costs, such as travel time and service accessibility, to better capture true insularity impacts.

Sweden: high transport costs underscore structural disconnection

Key finding. Swedish islands face significantly higher transport costs, even after accounting for remoteness, while land and housing costs are higher on average but not statistically significant when controlled for geography.

• Descriptive analysis. Ferry-related economic costs for a single mainland trip are substantially higher for Gotland (EUR 124 per passenger; EUR 324 per business) than for Öckerö (EUR 10-12). Differences reflect longer distances, fewer ferry departures, and paid tickets on Gotland versus free, high-frequency service on Öckerö.

• Regression results. In the Swedish case study (Gotland and Öckerö), and after controlling for geography and remoteness, the island dummy is associated with 166% higher travel costs for residents and about 323% higher costs for businesses relative to comparable mainland municipalities. These costs include financial, time and inconvenience components and are calculated on the basis of user-facing costs, excluding transport subsidies.

• Land and housing costs. On average, property prices per square metre are 80-130% higher, average purchase prices and assessed values are about 75-80% higher, and rents are roughly 10% higher on islands compared to mainland municipalities. However, econometric results show no statistically significant difference once geographic and remoteness factors are controlled for, likely due to the small number of island municipalities (n=2).

• Policy insight. Swedish evidence clearly shows that transport-related insularity costs are structural but policy-sensitive. High subsidies and ferry frequency reduce burdens for Öckerö, illustrating that well-designed connectivity and subsidy policies can mitigate geographic disadvantage. For evidence-based policymaking, expanding island-level data on land valuation, ferry operations, and subsidy flows would allow better assessment of both public cost and user benefit.

Comparative insights and policy relevance

Across all three countries, the findings underscore several policy-relevant lessons for governments seeking to understand and mitigate the costs of insularity (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2. Comparative Insights and Policy Relevance

Policy Issue	Cross-country Insight	Implication for Policymakers
Public expenditure pressures	Island municipalities consistently face higher service delivery costs, particularly in health, housing, and public order.	Integrate island-sensitive criteria into fiscal equalisation and intergovernmental transfer systems.
Transport and connectivity	High travel costs persist even with subsidies, reflecting both distance and service quality.	Combine infrastructure investment, operational subsidies, and service frequency improvements to reduce user burden.
Housing and land markets	Tourism inflates costs in some islands; others face depopulation and underuse.	Tailor housing policy and land-use planning to island typologies, balancing affordability, sustainability, and tourism demand.
Data and comparability	Lack of consistent, island-level indicators limits robust cross-country comparison.	Develop standardised data frameworks for island regions within national statistical systems.
Differentiated policy design	Costs vary sharply by island type (remote vs. nearshore, large vs. small).	Implement typology-based policy targeting to ensure proportionality and efficiency of interventions.

Final considerations

Empirical evidence confirms that islands face distinctive and measurable economic costs that stem from geographic isolation, limited connectivity, and structural service delivery challenges. These costs affect households, businesses, and governments, with varying intensity depending on remoteness, population size, and local economic structure.

The three case studies demonstrate that insularity costs can be quantified using diverse analytical methods and available data, even when indicators differ. For all countries with island or remote coastal territories, the policy priority is to:

• Improve data collection at island level;

• Design targeted connectivity and service delivery policies; and

• Integrate insularity-sensitive mechanisms into national fiscal and regional development frameworks.

Ultimately, the evidence supports a shift from compensatory measures toward strategic, evidence-based investment that addresses the root causes of insularity costs, ensuring that island regions can compete and thrive on equitable terms within their national economies.

Conclusions

Why it matters

Across OECD and partner countries, island and remote coastal territories play a vital economic, cultural, and environmental role. Nevertheless, these communities face structural cost disadvantages that affect residents, businesses, and governments alike.

Evidence from Croatia, Greece, and Sweden shows that the cost of insularity is real, measurable, and multi-dimensional. Island regions incur higher costs to deliver basic public services, maintain connectivity, and ensure affordable housing. These costs reflect geography, but also the way policy systems respond (or fail to respond) to isolation, small scale, and seasonal pressures.

While the magnitude and composition of costs differ by country, three recurring challenges emerge:

• Transport and connectivity costs remain the dominant burden;

• housing and land costs are rising sharply due to space constraints and tourism;

• local government expenditure is systematically higher per capita.

The policy challenge is not only to compensate islands for these disadvantages, but to reduce structural cost gaps through smarter, evidence-based investment and governance reform.

Lessons from country experiences

Croatia: adapting fiscal systems to island realities

• Island municipalities spend far more per person than mainland areas, especially in health, housing, and public order. These costs reflect the difficulty of providing services to small, dispersed populations and the pressures of seasonal tourism.

• Some drivers of higher costs, like congestion or environmental regulation, are shared with coastal regions, suggesting that not all extra costs are purely “island effects.”

• Islands further from the mainland face sharply higher transport costs and travel times. Incorporating indicators such as journey frequency, duration, and cost into island typologies would enable more targeted subsidies and investment.

Policy takeaway. Adjust fiscal equalisation systems to recognise structural cost differences; link additional funding to measurable service outcomes and efficiency improvements.

Greece: managing seasonality and strengthening infrastructure resilience

• Greek islands are economically robust, but insularity still generates infrastructure, transport, and planning challenges. Productivity levels match the mainland, but service delivery and connectivity remain more costly.

• Tourism and seasonality are central to island cost dynamics. Peaks in visitor numbers strain infrastructure and housing markets, while off-season demand collapses, undermining market efficiency.

• The transport equivalent policy compensates island firms for travel costs, but data gaps limit evaluation. A consolidated national database on ferry frequency, ticket prices, and subsidies would enable more transparent and equitable policy design.

Policy takeaway. Focus on geographically targeted investments in transport, water systems, and spatial planning. Smooth seasonality through tourism management tools such as differentiated levies or cruise scheduling.

Sweden: revealing the hidden costs of connectivity

• In the two Swedish island municipalities studied (Gotland and Öckerö), transport costs for residents and businesses are exceptionally high, with ferry travel imposing significant time, reliability and inconvenience costs beyond ticket prices. For example, business shipping goods from Gotland to Stockholm faces costs comparable to trucking from above the Arctic Circle.

• “Free” ferry services are publicly funded but lack transparency in total subsidy levels, obscuring true societal costs. Remote households without ferry links also face unrecorded expenses for private transport.

• Land and housing prices are typically higher on islands, though small sample sizes limit robust conclusions. Expanding island-level property data would improve accuracy and help manage affordability pressures.

Policy takeaway. Introduce full-cost accounting for island transport systems, including time and inconvenience costs, to inform subsidy design and infrastructure investment. Increase transparency of public support and its distribution across islands.

Shared challenges and policy priorities

Across all three countries, the same structural pressures appear in different forms. These insights have broad international relevance for any government seeking to promote equitable and sustainable island development (Table 5.3).

Table 5.3. Shared challenges and policy priorities

Policy Area	Core Challenge	Action for Policymakers
Transport and connectivity	High costs of travel and freight, often underestimated due to hidden time and reliability factors.	Create transparent databases on ferry routes, ticket prices, and subsidies; integrate travel-time equivalence into transport compensation schemes.
Public service delivery	Higher per capita spending needs due to small scale and isolation.	Strengthen fiscal equalisation systems to reflect cost differentials; tie additional funding to service efficiency and outcome metrics.
Housing and land markets	Tourism and limited land supply inflate prices, reducing affordability for residents.	Combine faster planning approvals with regulations on short-term rentals; promote year-round housing availability.
Data and measurement	Lack of comparable, island-level data on costs and services.	Develop standardised indicators of insularity, covering transport time, access to services, and infrastructure costs, to support evidence-based territorial policy.

Moving from compensation to transformation

The evidence points to a clear message: insularity imposes persistent costs, but these can be reduced through proactive policy design. Governments should aim not only to offset island disadvantages, but to reshape the conditions that create them.

Priority actions:

• Integrate island typologies into fiscal and spatial planning frameworks to tailor interventions to remoteness, population size, and connectivity.

• Increase transparency of all forms of island-related public expenditure, particularly transport subsidies, to assess efficiency and equity.

• Expand data collection at the municipal or island level, including geography, accessibility, and service delivery indicators, to enable robust benchmarking.

• Design long-term strategies that link connectivity, housing, and public service reform, reducing costs structurally rather than through ongoing compensation.

Key takeaway. Islands face distinct and enduring cost disadvantages, but policy choices determine how severe those disadvantages become. Where governments invest strategically in connectivity, data transparency, and efficient service delivery, the “cost of insularity” can be reduced, and the unique potential of island regions unlocked.