Maps

The data excludes emissions from land use, land use change or forestry (LULUCF). The regional data has been adjusted to UNFCCC national data. The data for Denmark, Iceland and Greenland is on national level. It should be noted that displaying emissions on a territorial basis may be skewed due to the inter-regional dynamics of energy processes, natural resource distributions and concentrations of industrial activities. From 2017 to 2021, the Nordic regions cut their per-capita GHG emissions by on average 11.3%, with an overall Nordic average fall of 8.7% over the same period. In regions historically reliant on fossil fuels for heat and power generation, emissions have continued to decline. This trend is evident in Denmark, as well as in Southern Sweden and Southern Finland – densely populated areas that have taken steps toward expanding district heating coverage and reducing carbon intensity. The largest decrease in GHG emissions per capita was found in Troms and Finnmark, with a 42.3% decrease, Satakunta with a 30.2% decrease and Päijät-Häme – Päijänne-Tavastland with a 29.2% decrease. Only three regions (Greenland, Trøndelag and Blekinge) saw an increase in GHG emissions per capita. At an aggregated level, industrial-related emissions decreased throughout the Nordic Region, but this trend does not hold true for regions in Norway with intensive offshore oil and gas operations. For instance, Nordland, Vestland, Møre og Romsdal, Vestfold and Telemark exhibited the highest per capita emissions in 2021. Between 2017 and 2021, emissions were increasing in many Norwegian regions with intensive offshore oil and gas activity, but also in Norrbotten in Sweden (21.2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per capita) and Gotland (33.6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per capita) due to intensive activity in the metal and cement industries, respectively, as well as in several Finnish regions. At the other end of the scale, the…

The map shows the geographical delimitation of cross-border regions and committees financed by the Nordic Council of Ministers as of March 2025.

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

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.

This map indicates the geographical areas involved in case studies and more in-depth research but does not cover municipalities and other areas involved in e.g. questionnaires or more general studies.

This map indicates the geographical areas involved in case studies and more in-depth research but does not cover municipalities and other areas involved in e.g. questionnaires or more general studies.

This map indicates the geographical areas involved in case studies and more in-depth research but does not cover municipalities and other areas involved in e.g. questionnaires or more general studies.

This map indicates the geographical areas involved in case studies and more in-depth research but does not cover municipalities and other areas involved in e.g. questionnaires or more general studies.

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 map shows the share of employed people in tourism industry in 2017. On a national level the share of tourism is quite similar in the Nordic countries, except for Iceland where the share is more than double as high. In Iceland it is especially the sector “Accommodation and food service activities” that stands out. This category alone stood for 6.9% of the total employment in Iceland in 2017 . On a regional level Åland stands out with 14.7% of employment in tourism. In Åland it is mainly the category “Sea passenger transport” that is big. Only this category stands for 9.8% of the employment. Also other islands such as Gotland and Bornholm have a high share of employment in tourism as well as the capital cities of Copenhagen and Stockholm. Jämtland attracts many tourists in the winter. The regions with the lowest share of tourism employment include the Finnish regions Keski-Pohjanmaa and Etelä-Pohjanmaa (both 2,7%); Københavns omegn (2.9%) and Vestjylland (3.4%) in Denmark; Blekinge (3.3%) and Kronoberg (3.3%) in Sweden and Østfold (3.5%) in Norway. The data on employment by sector is classified using the NACE classification system (“nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne”). To define which sectors that tourism comprise of, we have selected the Eurostat’s definition due to the fact that Eurostat has adapted the definition of UNWTO to a European context to make it more precise and to avoid overestimate certain economic activities (e.g. real estate activities). Their definition is also very close to the definition used by Tillväxtverket. Eurostat thus defines tourism as comprising the following economic activities : H4910 Passenger rail transport, interurban H4932 Taxi operation H4939 Other passenger land transport n.e.c. H5010 Sea and coastal passenger water transport H5030 Inland passenger water transport H5110 Passenger air transport I5510 Hotels and…

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.

The map shows the “at-risk-of-poverty” (AROP) rate in the Nordic Region. For the period from 2004 to 2018, the AROP rate increased in all Nordic countries except Iceland. This trend was strongest in Sweden. In Finland the AROP rate has been decreasing during the past few years, in line with what has previously been indicated – namely, on account of economic turmoil. This points to one of the weaknesses of using the AROP rate alongside several other measures of inequality. That is, while people have become poorer due to the economic crisis, the at-risk-of-poverty rate has paradoxically gone down. In addition, the AROP rate for Finland is higher in 2018 than it was in 2004. Looking at these trends on a regional level over a period of time (between 2011 and 2018), we can see that the AROP rate has decreased in almost all areas of Finland, whereas the pattern is rath er more varied in the other Nordic countries (we can also see a cohesive area in the south of Denmark where the AROP rate has decreased.) Again, Sweden has the most regions displaying increases in the AROP rate. Finland and Sweden contain the largest differences between the regions with the highest and lowest AROP rate. Hence the greatest regional differences are to be found in Sweden and Finland. Sweden also has the highest average AROP rate. About the At-risk-of-poverty The at-risk-of-poverty rate is a common measure of relative poverty and social inclusion. Most notably, it has been used for monitoring the EU2020 goal of inclusive growth. The at-risk-of-poverty rate is normally defined as “the share of people with an equivalised disposable income (after social transfer) below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60% of the national median equivalised disposable income after social transfer.” (Eurostat). The indicator is…