Maps

The map shows the population change by component 2010-2019. The map is related to the same map showing regional and municipal patterns in population change by component in 2020. Regions are divided into six classes of population change. Those in shades of blue or green are where the population has increased, and those in shades of red or yellow are where the population has declined. At the regional level (see small inset map), all in Denmark, all in the Faroes, most in southern Norway, southern Sweden, all but one in Iceland, all of Greenland, and a few around the capital in Helsinki had population increases in 2010-2019. Most regions in the north of Norway, Sweden, and Finland had population declines in 2010-2019. Many other regions in southern and eastern Finland also had population declines in 2010-2019, mainly because the country had more deaths than births, a trend that pre-dated the pandemic. In 2020, there were many more regions in red where populations were declining due to both natural decrease and net out-migration. At the municipal level, a more varied pattern emerges, with municipalities having quite different trends than the regions of which they form part. Many regions in western Denmark are declining because of negative natural change and outmigration. Many smaller municipalities in Norway and Sweden saw population decline from both negative natural increase and out-migration despite their regions increasing their populations. Many smaller municipalities in Finland outside the three big cities of Helsinki, Turku, and Tampere also saw population decline from both components. A similar pattern took place at the municipal level in 2020 of there being many more regions in red than in the previous decade.

The map shows the annual average internal net migration in 2010-2019. The map is related to the same map showing net internal migration in 2020. The maps show several interesting patterns, suggesting that there may be an increasing trend towards urban-to-rural countermigration in all the five Nordic countries because of the pandemic. In other words, there are several rural municipalities – both in sparsely populated areas and areas close to major cities – that have experienced considerable increases in internal net migration. In Finland, for instance, there are several municipalities in Lapland that attracted return migrants to a considerable degree in 2020 (e.g., Kolari, Salla, and Savukoski). Swedish municipalities with increasing internal net migration include municipalities in both remote rural regions (e.g., Åre) and municipalities in the vicinity of major cities (e.g., Trosa, Upplands-Bro, Lekeberg, and Österåker). In Iceland, there are several remote municipalities that have experienced a rapid transformation from a strong outflow to an inflow of internal migration (e.g., Ásahreppur, Tálknafjarðarhreppurand, and Fljótsdalshreppur). In Denmark and Norway, there are also several rural municipalities with increasing internal net migration (e.g., Christiansø in Denmark), even if the patterns are somewhat more restrained compared to the other Nordic countries. Interestingly, several municipalities in capital regions are experiencing a steep decrease in internal migration (e.g., Helsinki, Espoo, Copenhagen and Stockholm). At regional level, such decreases are noted in the capital regions of Copenhagen, Reykjavík and Stockholm. At the same time, the rural regions of Jämtland, Kalmar, Sjælland, Nordjylland, Norðurland vestra, Norðurland eystra and Kainuu recorded increases in internal net migration. While some of the evolving patterns of counterurbanisation were noted before 2020 for the 30–40 age group, these trends seem to have been strengthened by the pandemic. In addition to return migration, there may be a larger share of young adults who…

The map shows the annual average international net migration from 2010 to 2019. The map is related to the same map showing net migration in 2020. At regional level, there are only minor changes between the net migration in 2010-2019 and 2020. All regions of Norway, all regions of Sweden except Gotland and Uppsala, and the regions of Österbotten in Finland, Midtjylland in Denmark and Norðurland eystra in Iceland experienced a slight decrease in international net migration I 2020 compared to 2010-2019. There is a more marked increase in net migration in the Faroe Islands, Greenland and the region of Norðurland vestra in Iceland, and a slight increase in the region of Austurland in Iceland. At municipal level, the maps show more changing patterns. In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, several municipalities – both in the capital, intermediate, and rural regions – had lower levels of international net migration in 2020 compared to 2010-2019. In Iceland and Finland, the picture is more balanced, with some municipalities showing a decrease, others an increase. In the Faroe Islands and Greenland, several municipalities/regions had an increase in international net migration.

The map illustrates the average share of employees who commuted to another Nordic country between between 2015 and 2018 in Nordic regions (NUTS 2). Between 2015 and 2018, an average of approximately 49,000 people held a job in a Nordic country in which they were not residents. This indicates that, on average, 0.5% of the Nordic working-age population commuted to a job in another Nordic country. This is below the EU27 average of 1%, with the highest numbers found in Slovakia (5.1%), Luxembourg (2.8%) and Estonia (2.6%). Some of these people cross borders daily. Others work in another country by means of remote working combined with occasional commuting across borders.  Within the Nordic Region, the largest cross-border commuter flows are in the southernmost parts of Sweden, regions in the middle of Sweden and in Åland, where more than 1% of the working population commutes to another Nordic country. However, there may be individual municipalities where cross-border commuting is substantially higher. For example, the employment rate in Årjäng Municipality, Sweden, increases by 15 percentage points when cross-border commuting is taken into account. These municipalities are not reflected on NUTS 2 level when averages are calculated. In terms of absolute numbers in 2015, the highest numbers of commuters were from Sweden: Sydsverige (16,543), Västsverige (7,899) and Norra Mellansverige (6,890). The highest number of commuters from a non-Swedish region were from Denmark’s Hovedstaden (2,583).   Due to legislative barriers regarding the exchange of statistical data on cross-border commuting between the Nordic countries, more recent data is not available. 

The map shows the cumulative number of confirmed cases of Covid-19 per 10,000 inhabitants until 31 December 2021 in most European countries. In a European context, the Nordic countries stand out as having a relatively low number of confirmed cases in most regions. Sweden and Denmark stand out as the countries with the highest number of confirmed cases among the Nordic countries. It is possible however that the high case numbers in Denmark can be explained, at least to some extent, by the high levels of testing per capita. Looking at Europe as a whole, the UK, Spain, Czechia, Croatia and the Baltic States stand out as having experienced the highest number of cases overall. From a regional perspective, higher case numbers can often be observed around the capital regions and other large cities. There are also several cross-border differences that are interesting to note. In Germany, for example, the border with the Netherlands is clearly evident with a much higher number of confirmed cases on the Dutch side of the border. In contrast, the situation in the eastern part of the country more closely resembles that in the Czechia than what was observed in the rest of Germany. 

The map shows annual average immigration flows above 3,000 people, and the growing diversity in their countries of origin Sweden and Denmark, in particular, experienced large inflows from non-Nordic countries during the period 2010-2019, with Sweden standing out as the Nordic country with by far the largest immigrant in-flows. A large portion of these arrivals were from war-torn Syria (an annual average of almost 15,000), followed by Poland (approximately 4,500), United Kingdom, Iraq, India and Iran (around 4,000 each). Denmark experienced a smaller number of inflows above 3,000 people, compared to Sweden. The largest non-Nordic inflows to Denmark were around 5,000 people (per sending country) and included migrants from the U.S., Germany, Romania and Poland. For Norway, large non-Nordic in-flows were limited to Lithuania and Poland. Similarly, Finland had only one major inflow, from Estonia.

This map shows change in share of biofuels in final energy consumption in transport in the Nordic Arctic and Baltic Sea Region from 2010 to 2018. Even though a target for greater use of biofuels has been EU policy since the Renewable Energy and Fuel Quality Directives of 2009, development has been slow. The darker shades of blue on the map represent higher increase, and the lighter shades of blue reflect lower increase. The lilac color represent decrease. The Baltic Sea represents a divide in the region, with countries to the north and west experiencing growth in the use of biofuels for transport in recent years. Sweden stands out (16 per cent growth), while the other Nordic countries has experienced more modest increase. In the southern and eastern parts of the region, the use of biofuels for transport has largely stagnated. Total biofuel consumption for transport has risen more than the figure indicates due to an increase in transport use over the period.

The map shows the share of cross border commuters in the total employees with residence in a NUTS2 Nordic Region in 2015. The darker the blue, the higher the share. For the most NUTS2 regions in the Nordic, the percent is lower than 0,5%, indicating the commuting workers are the absolute minority in the total employed people. Åland (2,6%) and the South Sweden region (2,7%) stand out with more than 2% of employees in the region commuting cross-border for work. The destination country for Åland workers is Sweden, while for Swedish workers living in the south is Denmark. The commuting pattern is also apparent for the Swedish NUTS2 regions along the border line with Norway, with relatively higher percent of cross border workers commuting to Norway compared with other Nordic NUTS2 regions. At a finer scale (e.g., NUTS3) would show higher percentages in a number of regions, e.g., by taking only the NUTS 3 region – Skåne instead of the NUTS 2 region South Sweden (Skåne+Blekinge) or the border regions between NO and SE.

The map builds on statistics of cross-border commuters with residence in a NUTS2 Nordic region commute for work in 2015. For each NUTS2 region, the map shows the total number of commuters who commute to other Nordic countries for work. The number of commuters is categorised into three groups visualised in different shades: the darker, the higher the number of commuters. In addition, the most common country these commuters commute to from each region is identified by specific colours. For example, the darkest red indicates a region with at least 2,000 commuters working in another Nordic country, of which the largest group number of commuters works in Denmark. The most commuters were from the region of South Sweden (16 543) in 2015, and the majority of them commuted to Denmark for work. Norway is the most popular destination for work commuters in the Nordic Region, e.g., all Swedish regions except for the South Sweden region, all the regions in Denmark except for the Copenhagen region, and Iceland. Sweden is more attractive for work commuters living in Finland, Copenhagen region, and bordering regions in Norway.

The map shows the accessibility to specialised hospitals, hospitals with 24/7 surgical services, hospitals with overnight care, primary health care centres and part time health care centres in Iceland. In total, 47 health care facilities provide primary health care and 22 health care facilities provide part time primary health care in the country, contributing to an established pattern of extensive accessibility across Iceland. Altogether, all the health care facilities cover 99.5% of the population within a 30-minute ride, and a one-hour ride covers nearly the entire Icelandic population (99.95%).

The map shows the accessibility to specialised hospitals, hospitals with 24/7 surgical services, hospitals with overnight care and primary health care centres in Iceland. The people in Iceland have widespread access to primary health care, thanks to the 47 health care facilities in the country which provide such a service. These four types of health care service cover 98.8% of the national population within a 30-minute car ride, and 99.9% of the population is covered by a one-hour car ride.

The map shows the accessibility to specialised hospitals, hospitals with 24/7 surgical services and hospitals with overnight care in Iceland. Overnight care is available in six more healthcare facilities in the country. Over 90% of the national population (91.2%) are able to access these services within a 30-minute car ride, while a one-hour car ride covers 96.2% of the national population.

The map shows the accessibility to both specialised hospitals and hospitals with 24/7 surgical services in Iceland. Apart from the two hospitals providing specialised care, three more health care facilities providing 24/7 surgical services in the country. Nearly 80% of the inhabitants (76.2%) can access such health care services within a 30-minute car ride, and a car ride of one hour covers 89.4% of the Icelandic population who need such a service.

The map shows the accessibility to specialised hospitals in Iceland. Highly specialised care, being the most professional form of health care service, is also the most restricted in terms of accessibility for the general population in Iceland, compared to other types of health care. The two hospitals offering specialised care are located in Reykjavik and Akureyri. More than two-thirds of the inhabitants (70.85%) can access specialised health care services within a 30-minute car ride, and a car ride of one hour covers 85.39% of the Icelandic population who need such a service.

The map illustrates the accessibility of in-patient care in Eastern health region in Iceland. The colours represent car ride times in minutes from the place of residency to the nearest health care facility within a certain service type, with a travel range of 10 minutes to two hours. The health care facilities are also located on the map. Fjarðabyggð and Fljótsdalshérað accommodate the two health care facilities which offer in-patient care. Almost one-third of the inhabitants (28.2%) can access one of these two facilities, if they need them, within a 10 minute car ride. A half-hour car ride covers more than half of the regional population (59.3%), and a one hour car ride covers 86.4% of the population in the health region.

The map illustrates the accessibility of out-patient drop-in care in Eastern health region in Iceland. The colours represent car ride times in minutes from the place of residency to the nearest health care facility within a certain service type, with a travel range of 10 minutes to two hours. The health care facilities are also located on the map. Out-patient drop-in care during both office and non-office hours (24/7) is only available in one health care facility in Eastern health region in Iceland, and this is in Fjarðabyggð. This scarcity contributes to restricted access to the service. Approximately one-in-ten (11.5%) in the region can reach the drop-in care facility within a half-hour car ride, and it is accessible to less than half of the regional population (40.1%) within a one-hour car ride.

The map illustrates the accessibility of primary care in Eastern health region in Iceland. The colours represent car ride times in minutes from the place of residency to the nearest health care facility within a certain service type, with a travel range of 10 minutes to two hours. The health care facilities are also located on the map. Fjarðabyggð municipality accommodates five of the 11 facilities. All the other municipalities, apart from Fljótsdalshreppur, accommodate one health care facility each. Primary out-patient care is available in all the 11 health care facilities, covering 65.7% of the regional population withina 10 minute car ride. A large majority of inhabitants (87.7%) across the region can access primary care within a half-hour car ride, and a one-hour car ride covers a 97.5% of the regional population. Accessibility in Fjarðabyggð is relatively extensive, with five primary care facilities.Despite Fljótsdalshérað only accommodating one primary care facility, inhabitants have easy access to the service, since the facility is located in the most densely populated part of the municipality.

The map illustrates the accessibility of in-patient care in Sogn og Fjordane in Norway. The colours represent car ride times in minutes from the place of residency to the nearest health care facility within a certain service type, with a travel range of 10 minutes to two hours. The health care facilities are also located on the map. Despite the existence of seven health care facilities in Sogn og Fjordane, and three outside the region also providing in-patient care, accessibility is relatively restricted. Less than one fifth of the regional population (18.4%) can access these hospitals within a half-hour car ride, while a one-hour car ride covers just over one-third of the population (35.7%). Luster municipality accommodates one of the health care facilities offering in-patient care, which also offers primary and emergency out-patient care. The municipality therefore has relatively extensive accessibility of various kinds of health care, except highly specialised care.

The map illustrates the accessibility of out-patient drop-in care during non-office hours in Sogn og Fjordane in Norway. The colours represent car ride times in minutes from the place of residency to the nearest health care facility within a certain service type, with a travel range of 10 minutes to two hours. The health care facilities are also located on the map. With regard to out-patient drop-in care during evenings and weekends (24/7), accessibility is more limited compared to office hours provision. In total, 14 health care facilities included in the analysis were offering such a service, with four of them located outside the region. Approximately one-third of inhabitants (32.8%) can reach one health care facility within a ten-minute car ride when they need drop-in health care during non-office hours., these facilities are accessible to half of the regional population (51.8%) within halfan-hour by car, and 71.8% of the population can be covered by a one-hour car ride.

The map illustrates the accessibility of out-patient drop-in care during office hours in Sogn og Fjordane in Norway. The colours represent car ride times in minutes from the place of residency to the nearest health care facility within a certain service type, with a travel range of 10 minutes to two hours. The health care facilities are also located on the map. The accessibility of out-patient emergency care during office hours presents a similar picture to that of primary care, since 27 of the 28 primary care facilities also provide emergency care during office hours. The service is accessible to a slightly smaller proportion of the population (57.9%) within a ten-minute car ride, and 89.3% of all people living in the region can access emergency health care during daytime.