Maps

A map portrays a new urban-rural typology based on the grid-level data. New Nordic urban-rural typology is a grid-based classification of areas developed by the Nordic Thematic groups 2021-2024 to enable more accurate cross-Nordic statistical comparisons. The seven classes are defined based on population density, proximity measures and land cover parameters. Read more about the typology here . Inner urban area is the most densely populated part of the urban core. Urban cores are clustered cells summing up to at least 15 000 inhabitants, and these are divided into Inner and Outer urban areas based on density criterion (population density and building floor space). Outer urban area is the least densely populated part of the urban core. Urban core areas are clustered cells with at least 15 000 inhabitants, and these are divided into Inner and Outer urban areas based on density criterions (population density and building floorspace). Peri-urban area is the intermediate zone between urban core and the rural. It is based on generalized travel-time estimates from the edges of outer urban areas (6 min travel-time zones) and smaller urban settlement (4,5 min travel-time zones). Local centers in rural areas are population centers located outside urban areas, small towns and large parish villages where population is between 5000-14999 inhabitants. Rural areas close to urban areas have a rural character that are functionally connected and close to urban areas. In average this means 20-30 of minutes’ drive time from the edge of outer urban area. This class overwrites the area classes ‘Rural heartland’ and ‘Sparsely populated rural areas’.  Rural heartland. Rural areas with intensive land use, with a relatively dense population and a diverse economic structure at the local level. Most of the agricultural land is in this class. Sparsely populated rural areas. Sparsely populated areas with dispersed small settlements that are located at a distance from each other.…

A map portrays a new urban-rural typology based on the grid-level data. New Nordic urban-rural typology is a grid-based classification of areas developed by the Nordic Thematic groups 2021-2024 to enable more accurate cross-Nordic statistical comparisons. The seven classes are defined based on population density, proximity measures and land cover parameters. Read more about the typology here . Inner urban area is the most densely populated part of the urban core. Urban cores are clustered cells summing up to at least 15 000 inhabitants, and these are divided into Inner and Outer urban areas based on density criterion (population density and building floor space). Outer urban area is the least densely populated part of the urban core. Urban core areas are clustered cells with at least 15 000 inhabitants, and these are divided into Inner and Outer urban areas based on density criterions (population density and building floorspace). Peri-urban area is the intermediate zone between urban core and the rural. It is based on generalized travel-time estimates from the edges of outer urban areas (6 min travel-time zones) and smaller urban settlement (4,5 min travel-time zones). Local centers in rural areas are population centers located outside urban areas, small towns and large parish villages where population is between 5000-14999 inhabitants. Rural areas close to urban areas have a rural character that are functionally connected and close to urban areas. In average this means 20-30 of minutes’ drive time from the edge of outer urban area. This class overwrites the area classes ‘Rural heartland’ and ‘Sparsely populated rural areas’.  Rural heartland. Rural areas with intensive land use, with a relatively dense population and a diverse economic structure at the local level. Most of the agricultural land is in this class. Sparsely populated rural areas. Sparsely populated areas with dispersed small settlements that are located at a distance from each other.…

The map portrays the urban-rural typology based on the municipal level data.

The map shows the contraction of national economies in Western Europe in 2020. In 2020, the global economy contracted by -3.1%. Nonetheless, the economic trajectories of the various regions have been very different. While emerging markets shrank by -2.1%, advanced economies declined by twice that rate (-4.5%). The European Union was one of the regions more severely impacted by the Covid-19 crisis. Here, the GDP contraction in 2020 was -5.9% (-6.4% in the Euro area). The economic repercussions of the pandemic in the Nordic countries were less severe. On average, the Nordic economies contracted by -3.0% in 2020. Even though all countries in the Nordic Region experienced an economic deceleration, the impacts were very different in different areas. Measured in real terms, in 2020, GDP volumes shrunk between -7.1% in Iceland and -0.7% in Norway. Somewhere in the middle were Denmark (-2.1%), Finland (-2.3%), and Sweden (-2.9 %). In the autonomous territories, the GDP contraction ranged from a -2.8% decline in the Faroe Islands to a modest 0.4% expansion in Greenland.

The map shows a typology of European regions by combining information on pre-pandemic unemployment rates with unemployment rates in 2020, based on the annual Labour Force Survey (LFS) that is measured in November. On one axis, the typology considers the extent of the change in the unemployment rate between 2019 and 2020. On the other axis, it considers whether the unemployment rate in 2020 was above or below the EU average of 7.3%. Regions are divided into four types based on whether the unemployment rate decreased or increased and how it relates to the EU average. Regions falling into the first type, shown in red on the map, had an increase in the unemployment rate in 2020 as well as an above-average unemployment rate in general in 2020. These regions were most affected by the pandemic. They are mainly found in northern and central parts of Finland, southern and eastern Sweden, the capital area of Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain and central parts of France. Regions falling into the second type, shown in orange on the map, had an increase in the unemployment rate in 2020 but a below-average unemployment rate in general in 2020. These regions had low pre-pandemic unemployment rates and so were not as badly affected as the red regions, despite the rising unemployment rates. They are located in Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Åland, southern and western Finland, Sweden (Gotland, Jönköping, and Norrbotten), Estonia, Ireland, northern Portugal and central and eastern parts of Europe.

The map shows the number of births during the first nine months of 2021 (January to September) compared to the number of births during the same months in 2020. The babies born during the first nine months of 2021 were conceived between the spring and winter of 2020 when the first waves of the pandemic affected Europe. Babies born during the first nine months of 2020 were conceived in 2019 (i.e., before the pandemic). The map therefore compares the number of births conceived before and during the pandemic. At the time of writing, it seems as if both baby boom and baby bust predictions have been correct, with developments playing out differently across countries. In many Southern and Eastern European countries, such as Spain, Italy or Romania, the number of births declined by more than 1% during the first nine months of 2021. In Portugal and Poland, but also Greenland, drops in the number of births were particularly sharp with more than 5% fewer babies born in 2021. In several of these “baby bust” countries, these decreases in fertility came on top of already low fertility rates. Spain, Italy, Portugal and Poland, for instance, all already had a total fertility rate (TFR) of less than 1.5 children per woman before the crisis. These values are substantially below the so-called ‘replacement ratio’ of 2.1 children per woman, which is necessary to maintain population size. In these countries, existing demographic challenges have thus been aggravated during the pandemic.

The excess mortality has affected overall life expectancy at birth across Europe. In 2019, prior to the start of the pandemic, Spain, Switzerland, and Italy had the highest life expectancy in Europe, followed closely by Sweden, Iceland, France, and Norway. Finland and Denmark had slightly lower levels but were still at or above the EU average (Eurostat, 2021). Life expectancy across the EU as a whole and in nearly all other countries has been steadily increasing for decades. Declines in life expectancy are rare, but that is indeed what happened in many countries in Europe during the pandemic in 2020. One study of upper-middle and high-income countries showed that life expectancy declined in 31 of 37 countries in 2020. The only countries where life expectancy did not decline were New Zealand, Taiwan, Iceland, South Korea, Denmark and Norway. The largest falls were in Russia and the United States. The high excess mortality in Sweden in 2020 has had an impact on life expectancy. In Iceland, Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Faroe Islands, life expectancy went up for both sexes in 2020 (data not yet available for Greenland and Åland). In Sweden, life expectancy fell by 0.7 years for males from 81.3 years to 80.6 and for females by 0.4 years from 84.7 to 84.3 years. The steeper decline in life expectancy for males is consistent with the larger number of excess deaths among males.  Thus, compared to other Nordic countries, the adverse mortality impact of the pandemic has been greater in Sweden. However, when comparing Sweden to the rest of Europe, it is the Nordic countries, other than Sweden, which are exceptional. The trend among countries in Europe is for a fall in life expectancy in 2020. The largest declines were in countries in southern and eastern Europe. Italy and…

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 the geographical delimitation of cross-border regions and committees financed by the Nordic Council of Ministers as of December 2021.

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 geographical delimitation of cross-border regions and committees financed by the Nordic Council of Ministers.

The travel times indicate the fastest morning connection outbound from Copenhagen Central Station or Malmö Central Station, departing after 6:30AMand arriving before 9:00AM. The station catchments are calculated by bicycle travel time for any time remaining beyond train travel. For instance, a 35-minute train ride and a 10-minute cycle ride results in a 45-minute total travel time. The shades of green indicate the travel time to other train stations and their surrounding areas in four main classes: up to 15 minutes, 16 to 30 minutes, 31 to 45 minutes and 46 to 60 minutes. The areas not highlighted in green on the map are further than one hour by train from either Copenhagen or Malmö main train stations. The map clearly shows that the vast majority of areas within the Capital Region of Denmark, a number of stations and areas which are part of the region of Zealand, for instance Slagelse and Næstved, as well as areas located along four main train corridors in Skåne (Malmö-Helsingborg, Malmö-Hässleholm, Malmö-Trelleborg and Malmö-Ystad) are within the one-hour travel time by train from/to Copenhagen and/or Malmö, thanks to the different train types (Öresund trains, regional trains and intercity trains). Areas of the GCR which are beyond the one-hour travel condition are the most northern part of the Capital Region of Denmark, the southern and western parts of Zealand (e.g. Kalundborg and Vordingborg) as well as most of the eastern half part of Skåne. In terms of population, the current situation provides this possibility to almost 3 million out of 4.3 million inhabitants, corresponding to 69% of the total population living in the Greater Copenhagen Region in 2020. The proportion of the total population increases to 75% when the region of Halland is excluded (as this was not initially part of the GCR when the…

This map shows the Greater Copenhagen Region, which constists of 85 municipalities and four regional authorities: the Capital Region of Denmark and Region Zealand on the Danish side, and the regions of Skåne and Halland on the Swedish side.

This map shows both the location of the four case studies of the Triborder activity 3 in the Greater Copenhagen Region and the local labour market areas in this cross-border region.

The map shows the proportion of households within each municipality that did not have access to a fixed-line broadband connection with a download speed above 30 Mbps in 2018. Put another way, the map shows the proportion of households which only had access to basic broadband. In Danish, Icelandic and Swedish municipalities, the proportion of households which only have basic broadband is rather small. In contrast, more than half of all households rely on basic broadband in many Norwegian and Finnish municipalities. The situation in Finland is particularly striking, with several municipalities in which over 75% of households have only basic Internet access. The average coverage by municipality type shows a clear digital divide between urban and rural municipalities. On average, fast broadband is available to all but 4% of households in urban municipalities. In contrast, approximately one third of households in rural municipalities do not have access to any faster broadband than 30 Mbps. The largest urban-rural digital divide is to be found in Norway and Finland. However, the pace of fibre development has never been higher. Particularly noteworthy is the strong growth in fibre-based broadband taking place outside of the densely populated areas.

The map shows the proportion of the population aged 30-34 years old, who had a tertiary education at the European level in 2019. Purple shades indicate higher proportions, and pinkish shades reflect lower proportions. It is common to show the education attainment for the age group 30-34 since it is an age group where most people have finalised their studies. The focus on this age group makes it easier to see recent trends and outcomes of policies. Overall, over 40% of Europeans aged 30-34 years old had a tertiary education in 2019. Young people in the Nordic countries are among the most educated, with approximately half of 30 to 34-year-olds achieving a tertiary education across all Nordic countries. The highest proportions can be found in the capital regions. Stockholm is particularly noteworthy, with over 60% of 30 to 34-year-olds having had a tertiary education. Regions with prominent universities also stand out – for example, Skåne, Uppsala, Västerbotten and Västra Götaland (Sweden), Trøndelag (Norway) and Østjylland (Denmark).

This map depicts the community impact (CI) of second home users in 2018[1] The indicator illustrates the impact of occasional second home visitors to the municipality. CI is defined as the ratio between annual inhabitants (AI) and regular population (CI= AI/Regular population). AI is a statistical variable that estimates the overall population of the municipalities, both the permanent inhabitants but also the seasonal second home visitors that also utilize the local infrastructure, welfare and planning resources.  AI is defined as three times the number of second homes plus the regular population. (AI= Regular population + 3 x number of second homes). Number three represents the estimate of average household size that visits the second home. Dark orange tones indicate high impact of seasonal inhabitants and light orange indicates lower impact of the seasonal variation. In populous municipalities with few recreational homes the two population measures (AI & regular population) will be almost identical, yielding a ratio approaching 1. The ratio between the regular population and the calculated annual population is large in municipalities with relatively few inhabitants and a high number of second homes. Nordic average for community impact by second home users was 1.2. Southern Savonia in Finland was the region with highest regional community impact. From other Nordic countries, the regions of Oppland in Norway, Suðurland in Iceland, and Jämtland Härjedalen in Sweden also stood out with higher ratios. On a municipal level the highest community impact can be found from Skorradalshreppur (30.0) in Iceland. Moreover, Grímsnes- og Grafningshreppur (19.0) (IS) and Kustavi (11.2) (FI) were the municipalities where the community impact also exceeded the ratio of 10. A large amount of second homes implies that there is a significant flow of people who are not permanently registered in these areas. This flow of people has both highly…

This map shows the ratio between household disposable income (HDI) and gross regional product (GRP) at regional level across Europe in 2016. A ratio of around 1 indicates that HDI and GRP are at a similar level, in which case GRP could be an accurate measure of individual material wellbeing. A lower value indicates a greater difference between the two values, meaning that GRP cannot be used as a proxy for highlighting the economic situation of the population in a region. The ratio between HDI and GRP for European regions in 2016 ranges from 0.24 to 0.92, with an average of 0.60. Regions with the lowest ratio are mostly capital city regions, although regions of Ireland also have a low ratio. This is partly due to the presence of large companies transferring some of the generated income to foreign countries (e.g. the country where the company’s headquarter is located). Regions, where HDI is similar to GRP, are mostly peripheral regions in countries such as France, Hungary, Poland and the United Kingdom, for instance in Southern Scotland (0.91). In the Nordic regions (NUTS 2 level), the value of HDI is on average half the value of GRP, meaning that GRP cannot be used as a good proxy for highlighting the economic situation of the population in these regions. Many regions in Norway and Sweden, as well as Iceland, are close to this Nordic average value of 0.52, which is lower than the European average. Read the digital publication here.

This map shows the regional innovation scoreboard (RIS) in the European regions in 2019. The small map shows the innovation scoreboard at national level. The index shows the performance of innovation systems, classified into four main performance groups (leader, strong, moderate and modest). The European innovation scoreboard provides a comparative assessment of the research and innovation performance in European countries. It assesses the relative strengths and weaknesses of national innovation systems and helps countries identify areas they need to address. The Regional innovation scoreboard (RIS), a regional extension of the European innovation scoreboard, assesses the innovation performance of European regions on a limited number of indicators. The RIS 2019 covers 238 regions across 23 EU countries, as well as Norway, Serbia and Switzerland. Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg and Malta are also included at country level. The RIS 2019 is a comparative assessment of regional innovation based on the European innovation scoreboard methodology, using 18 of the latter’s 27 indicators. It provides a more detailed breakdown of the performance groups with contextual data that can be used to analyse and compare structural economic, business and socio-demographic differences between regions. The Nordic regions are doing well in an overall RIS comparison regarding innovation performance. There are, however, considerable differences in innovation performance between the Nordic regions. For example, the capital regions have higher levels of innovation performance than more rural and peripheral regions, according to RIS 2019. This is often due to the critical mass of companies and the spatial significance of the proximity of firms and entrepreneurs, enabling knowledge-sharing and spill-over effects. Read the digital publication here.

This map is included in the introduction of the State of the Nordic Region 2020 report. The map is based on the typology provided by Eurostat (2018), in which the 2016 NUTS 3 regions are classified in three categories according to their population density in 2011 and 2015, in 1 km² grids. In predominantly urban regions, at least 80% of the total population is urban, while in intermediate regions, 50–80% of the population lives in urban clusters. In regions that are predominantly rural, less than 50% of the population lives in urban areas. Read the digital publication here.