Maps

This map shows the country of birth of the largest minority group in the Nordic countries. This map shows the country of birth of the largest minority group in each municipality in each Nordic municipality in 2022. The different colours represent the largest minority group, defined as a specific country or a group of countries. Using country of birth as an identity marker reveals an interesting geographic pattern of minority populations at the municipal level. Even with the increase in migration, native-born populations remain the largest group in each municipality (i.e. Swedish-born people are the largest group in every municipality in Sweden). They also constitute the majority in each municipality, with the exception of one small municipality with a majority-minority population. For visual simplicity, countries of birth are grouped. The four large Nordic countries are shown separately. The EU15 countries and EU accession countries constitute separate groups. The countries of the former Soviet Union (minus the Baltic states) are another group. Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Syria together constitute a group of countries from which many of the migrants to the Nordic countries came as refugees over the past decade. People born in Finland are the largest minority group in many regions near the Finnish border in northern Sweden, as well as a group of municipalities around Stockholm. In several border municipalities in Sweden, people born in Norway are the largest minority group. Swedish-born persons are the largest minority group in most municipalities in northern and western Finland (by percentage). People born in one of the EU15 countries form the largest minority group in southern Denmark, near the border with Germany, as well as a few other scattered municipalities in southern Sweden and Norway. Following several EU expansions starting in 2004, many people from the EU accession countries have…

This map shows the share of foreign-born of the total population in the Nordic countries. This map shows the share of foreign-born of the total population in Nordic municipalities (big map) and regions (small map), and municipalities (big map) in 2022. Iceland has the highest share of foreign-born residents in the Nordic Region, at 22%. Mýrdalshreppur, the municipality in the south containing the village of Vik, has the largest foreign-born population, at 58%. It is also the only municipality in the Nordic Region with a majority non-native population. Other municipalities in the south, some of which are quite small, also have significant foreign-born populations. Reykjanesbær, near Keflavik airport, is the largest municipality with a sizeable foreign-born population, at 29%. In Reykjavíkurborg, 20% of the population is foreign-born, about the same as the national average. Many municipalities with tiny populations in the Westfjords and the north also have small shares of foreign-born persons. In 2022, 17% of the population of Norway was foreign-born. Municipalities with high shares of foreign-born include Oslo (28%), several suburban municipalities near Oslo, and a few in the north – which have small overall populations but large numbers of foreign workers employed in the fishing industry. In Sweden, 20% of residents are foreign-born, with large differences in distribution by region and municipality. At the regional level, Stockholm has the highest share of foreign-born persons (27%), followed by Skåne, including the city of Malmö (24%). The percentage of foreign-born persons in Västra Götaland, which encompasses Gothenburg, is the same as that of Sweden as a whole. The regions with low shares of foreign-born persons are in the north of the country – Dalarna, Gävleborg, Västernorrland, Jämtland, Västerbotten, and Norrbotten – plus the island of Gotland, which has the lowest share (9%). There are no municipalities in which foreign-born…

This map shows the percentage-point change in foreign-born populations in the Nordic countries. This map shows the percentage-point change in foreign-born populations by region (small map) and municipality (big map) between 2000 and 2022. The blue shades indicate an increase in the number of foreign-born while the red shades indicate a decrease. The recent growth in foreign-born populations differs among the Nordic countries, regions, and municipalities. During the period 2000-2022, much of both the absolute and percentage-point increases in the foreign-born populations took place in suburbs around the capital cities and other large urban centres. However, with few exceptions, every municipality across the Nordic Region saw increases in foreign-born populations. In Iceland, the foreign-born population increased from 5% to 20%. The largest percentage-point increases in the foreign-born populations were in municipalities in the southwest, which had small populations and small foreign-born shares. Of the larger municipalities, Reykjanesbaer and the Capital Region had the largest absolute and percentage point increases. The foreign-born population in Norway grew from 7% to 17%. The municipalities with significant increases in foreign-born populations include several suburban areas near Oslo, as well as scattered municipalities elsewhere that had small foreign-born shares in 2000. The percentage of foreign-born residents in Oslo increased from 16% to 28% between 2000 and 2022. No municipalities experienced a decline in foreign-born population during this period.

This map shows the number of women in childbearing age as a percentage of the total population in the Nordic countries. This map shows the number of women in childbearing ages as percent of total population in the Nordic municipalities (big map) and regions (small map) in 2022. At the national level, Greenland and Iceland have the largest shares of women of childbearing age (15–45 years), more than 20%. Next are Norway, Denmark and Sweden, with somewhat lower shares, 18–19%. The lowest share, less than 18%, is in Finland, where there have been more deaths than births since 2016. The Faroes and Åland both have shares of less than 17%. Municipalities in Greenland and Iceland follow the national trends, mostly with shares of women of childbearing age of 20–25%, although some are higher than 25%. In the other countries, municipalities in and around the capitals and other large cities have larger shares, 20% or higher. Most regions outside of the large cities have smaller shares, between 15 and 20%. Many regions in Finland have older populations, and these have shares of less than 10%. The lack of women of childbearing age, combined with those of childbearing age having so few children, means that there will be fewer births in these municipalities in the future, leading to further population decline.

This map shows the total fertility rate (TFR) in 2022. The total fertility rate is the number of children a hypothetical cohort of women would have in one year. Data on total fertility rates is not available at the regional or municipal levels for all of the Nordic countries. The figures are estimated based on multiplying the general fertility rate by 30 (representing the typical number of reproductive years, between 15 and 45), assuming the general fertility rate is constant throughout this period. The general fertility rate is the number of births per woman during the childbearing years. At the regional level, age and gender composition are indicative of past trends but also harbingers of future population change. In 2018, prior to the pandemic, most Nordic municipalities had fertility levels in line with their respective national levels (see map Total fertility rate (TFR) 2018 in Nordregio’s Map Gallery). Most municipalities within Greenland and the Faroes had fertility rates above 1.5 children per woman, consistent with national rates of about 1.9 (2018 map). Municipalities in Sweden and Denmark typically had fertility rates of 1.5 or higher, consistent with their national rates of 1.7. By contrast, many municipalities in Norway and Finland had fertility rates of 1.5 or lower. In 2022, fertility in most municipalities across the Nordic Region fell, reflecting the declines at the national levels, but the spatial pattern had become slightly more varied (2022 map). In several municipalities in Norway, Finland, and Sweden, fertility rates fell to less than 1.0 children per woman. The drops in fertility resulted in declines in the number of births across most municipalities in 2022. Combined with increases in the number of deaths, this resulted in more deaths than births in many municipalities, consistent with trends at the national level. Most municipalities in Greenland,…

This map shows the total fertility rate (TFR) in 2018. The total fertility rate is the number of children a hypothetical cohort of women would have in one year. Data on total fertility rates is not available at the regional or municipal levels for all of the Nordic countries. The figures are estimated based on multiplying the general fertility rate by 30 (representing the typical number of reproductive years, between 15 and 45), assuming the general fertility rate is constant throughout this period. The general fertility rate is the number of births per woman during the childbearing years. At the regional level, age and gender composition are indicative of past trends but also harbingers of future population change. In 2018, prior to the pandemic, most Nordic municipalities had fertility levels in line with their respective national levels. Most municipalities within Greenland and the Faroes had fertility rates above 1.5 children per woman, consistent with national rates of about 1.9. Municipalities in Sweden and Denmark typically had fertility rates of 1.5 or higher, consistent with their national rates of 1.7. By contrast, many municipalities in Norway and Finland had fertility rates of 1.5 or lower. Iceland and Åland also showed varying rates across municipalities, ranging from 1 to over 1.5.

This map shows the internal net migration in 2021 as a percentage of the total population. This map shows the internal net migration in 2021 as a percentage of the total population. The small map shows the result on a regional level, and the big map on the municipal level. Internal (sometimes referred to as domestic) net migration refers to migration between municipalities and regions within the same country. International migration is excluded. In 2021, internal net migration was positive (indicated by shades of blue) or at least balanced (shown in yellow) in many of the municipalities in central and northern Sweden and in central and eastern Finland – areas that traditionally were more likely to lose population due to internal migration. Conversely, several municipalities in the capital regions – such as Stockholm, Oslo, and Copenhagen – exhibited negative internal net migration. Iceland, Greenland, and Åland exhibited mixed internal migration flows, with some municipalities experiencing positive net migration while others faced negative net migration. The Faroe Islands stand as an exception, maintaining only positive internal migration at the municipal level for this year.

This map shows the natural population change per 1,000 persons in 2022. This map shows the natural population change per 1,000 persons in 2022 (i.e. between 1 Jan and 31 Dec 2022). Natural population change refers to births minus deaths (i.e. population change disregarding migration). The small map shows the result on a regional level, and the big map shows changes on the municipal level. Red shades refer to population decrease, blue shades to population increase, and yellow shades to balanced development. The map shows that levels of natural population change do not only vary across but also within the Nordic countries. Urban areas such as Stockholm and Gothenburg in Sweden; Oslo and Bergen in Norway; Copenhagen and Aarhus in Denmark; as well as Helsinki and Turku in Finland all experienced positive natural population change. This can be attributed to the comparatively young population age structure of these urban centres. Young people of child-bearing age often cluster in cities for study and work, and many start families there. By contrast, rural and remote areas often have a higher proportion of older people and, as such, tend to register more deaths than births, resulting in negative natural population change. These patterns are particularly pronounced in Finland but also in the northern parts of Sweden and Norway. Nonetheless, there are exceptions. In Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, which had comparatively high levels of natural population growth at national level, a majority of municipalities, including many in rural areas, still registered more births than deaths in 2022 (77% of municipalities in Iceland, 60% in Greenland, 67% on the Faroe Islands). In the other Nordic countries, only a minority of municipalities, mostly in urban centres, recorded natural population increase in 2022 (30% in Norway and Sweden, 26% in Denmark, 12% in Finland).

This map shows the result of Nordregio’s Regional Potential Index in 2024 (data from 2022). Nordregio’s Regional Potential Index (RPI) enables cross-regional comparison of development potential and illustrates the regional balance between the Nordic countries and has been part of the State of the Nordic Region report since 2018. The purpose of this multidimensional index is to summarise the current and past performance of the Nordic regions across major policy domains. The index helps to identify regions that have high potential and those in need of further support to boost their potential and meet existing challenges. It provides policy-makers with a comparative learning tool that informs the design of effective regional development strategies at Nordic level. Nordregio’s RPI is a multi-item measurement scale that incorporates information about the demographics, labour market and economic output of the Nordic countries’ 66 administrative regions. It consists of eight indicators classified into four main groups and eight subgroups. These components and indicators were originally selected on the basis of their relevance for regional development. The 2024 RPI is based on a new refined method that maintains a similar set of indicators but applies a more robust statistical process to the construction of the RPI. In brief, the new methodology consists of a pre-processing stage, in which the input data is prepared for analysis, and a processing stage, in which the indicators are weighted and aggregated. More information about the method can be found in the State of the Nordic Region 2024 report. The RPI was calculated retroactively for the 2015–2023 period. However, the focus in this section is on 2022 – the most recent year in our time series with full data coverage. The map shows the redesigned RPI for that period. In line with the principles of accumulation and agglomeration that drive the…

These maps depicts Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with product innovation (left map) and process innovation (right map) in 2023. The data is displayed at the NUTS2 level and the data comes from the Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2023. The left map depicts SMEs introducing product innovations as a percentage of SMEs in the Nordic regions, calculated as the share of SMEs who introduced at least one product innovation. The values for the map are normalised from 0–10. In this context, a product innovation is defined as the market introduction of a good or service that is new or significantly improved with respect to its capabilities, user-friendliness, components, or sub-systems. Rural regions tend to have lower levels of SMEs with product innovations, while urban regions have the highest levels. In 2023, Åland (0.235) had the lowest number of SMEs with product innovations in the Nordic Region, while Oslo had the highest (1.0). Etelä-Suomi and Stockholm regions were slightly behind, with 0.954 and 0.948, respectively. In Denmark, the leading regions were the Capital Region (Hovedstaden) and Northern Jutland (Nordjylland), with 0.719 and 0.715, respectively. Southern Denmark (Syddanmark) had the lowest level in Denmark, at 0.545. In Norway, the lowest value was in Northern Norway (Nord-Norge), 0.67, while in Sweden it was Middle Norrland (Mellersta Norrland), with 0.53. Taken as an average across the Nordic countries, Norway has a significantly higher number of SMEs with product innovations than the other countries. The right map shows the share of SMEs introducing at least one business-process innovation, which includes process, marketing, and organisational innovations. In general, Nordic SMEs are more likely to innovate in products rather than processes. The highest shares of process-innovating SMEs are found in most of the Finnish regions ranging from 0,79 in Länsi-Suomi to 0,91 in Etelä-Suomi, except of Åland…

These maps shows the expenditure on Research and Development (R&D) in the public and business sectors as a percentage of regional GDP, along with non-R&D innovation expenditure in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) as a percentage of turnover. Together, these metrics offer a comprehensive understanding of the innovation landscape and provide insights into governments’ and higher education institutions’ commitment to foundational research, as well as the competitiveness and dynamism of the business environment and SMEs’ innovation capacity. By considering investment in both R&D and non-R&D activities, these indicators illustrate a broad spectrum of innovation drivers, from basic research to market-driven initiatives, and underscore the diverse pathways through which innovation fosters economic growth and social progress First, the top left map showcases R&D expenditure in the public sector as a percentage of GDP in the Nordic countries in 2023. In that year, the European level of R&D expenditure in the public sector, as a percentage of GDP, was 0.78%. By comparison, the Nordic average was 0.9%. While the more urban regions, in general, lead the Nordic regions, this is not always the case, as shown by the variation between the frontrunners. The leading region is Trøndelag (including Norway’s third-largest city, Trondheim), with 2.30% of regional GDP. It is in third place in the EU as a whole. The next regions are Övre Norrland with 1.77%, Northern Jutland with 1.54%, Östra Mellansverige with 1.52%, and Hovedstaden with 1.49%. A common feature of most of the top-ranking regions is that they host universities and other higher education institutions known for innovation practices. Most Nordic regions have not seen significant increases or decreases in public R&D spending between 2016 and 2023. The top right map focuses on the private sector’s investment in research and development activities and depicts R&D expenditure in the business sector…

This map displays the share of high-skilled workers as a share of the total number of workers in Nordic municipalities (big map) and regions (small map). “High-skilled workers” is here defined as group 1-3 (Managers, Professionals and Techinicians/associated professionals) of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO). For Iceland national data is used. The EU average of high-skilled workers is 43%, and the Nordic countries are at the top of the rankings – 49.5% in Finland, 51.1% in Denmark, 54.2% in Norway, 54.5% in Iceland and 58.9% in Sweden. On a regional level, the highest share is in the capitals and bigger cities, such as Stockholm (72%), Oslo (71%), Hovedstaden (Copenhagen) (60%), Uppsala (60%) and Uusima (Helsinki) (59%). The lowest shares are in the Finnish regions of EteläPohjanmaa, Keski-Pohjanmaa, Satakunta and Etelä-Savo (less than 40%). However, this does not necessarily mean that employers will have a greater chance of successfully recruiting high-skilled workers in the future, partly because those in this group already have jobs and partly due to generally lower investments in education.

This map shows the ratio between the age groups 20–29 and 55–64 at the municipal level (big map) and regional level (small map). A ratio below 1 indicates that fewer individuals are entering the labor market than leaving it, while a ratio above 1 means more people are entering than exiting. For the Nordic Region as a whole, the ratio is 0.95, meaning that there are slightly fewer people in the age group 20–29 than 55–64. Iceland is the only country with a ratio above 1 (Iceland: 1.3; Greenland: 0.99; Denmark: 0.97; Norway: 0.95; Finland: 0.94; Sweden: 0.93; Faroe Islands: 0.88; Åland: 0.63). All of the Icelandic regions, as well as the capital regions of Norway, Denmark and Finland, have a ratio above 1. In Sweden, the highest ratios are in Uppsala (1.25), Västerbotten (1.14) and Östergötland (1.03), while the ratio in Stockholm is below 1 (0.95). The lowest ratios are found in Etelä-Savo (0.62) and Åland (0.63) in Finland, Sjælland (0.63) in Denmark, Västernorrland (0.74) in Sweden, and in Vestfold og Telemark (0.78) and Viken (0.77) in Norway. However alarming these trends and developments are, they are neither new nor undescribed. An analysis of the factors and policy strategies that are influencing these developments enables adjustments to be made to future trends.

This map illustrates the projected change in the working-age population across Nordic municipalities (large map) and regions (small map) from 2023 to 2040. The working-age population is defined here as individuals aged 20 to 64. The blue areas on the maps represent municipalities and regions where the working-age population is expected to increase during this period. In contrast, the red areas indicate a projected decline in the working-age population. These projections are based on data from Nordic statistical institutes, though it’s important to note that the underlying assumptions may vary between Nordic countries. In most of the Western world, the working-age population is decreasing. In the EU, this age group is expected to decrease by 6.5% between 2023 and 2040. Only five EU countries – Malta, Luxembourg, Ireland, Sweden and Belgium – are expected to enjoy growth in the working-age population during this period. However, in the Nordic Region as a whole, the working-age population is expected to grow slightly, with an average increase of 1.9%. As the map shows, the distribution is quite varied, with considerable differences both between and within the countries. The biggest increase is expected in Iceland (28%), followed by Sweden (5.8%), Åland (3.9%) and Norway (0.6%). Decreases are expected in Finland (-0.5%), the Faroe Islands (-2.6%), Denmark (-3.2%) and Greenland (-11.4%). This development is in addition to the decreases already experienced by Finland since 2013.  In general, the trend of growing populations in cities and decreasing populations in rural areas is expected to continue. The regions that are expected to have the highest working-age population growth include Höfuðborgarsvæðið in Iceland, Uppsala (+13%), Stockholm (+12%), Skåne (+9%), Halland (+7%) and Västra Götaland (+6%) in Sweden, Uusimaa (+8%) and Pirkanmaa (+5%) in Finland, and Oslo and Viken in Norway (+5%). In addition, Copenhagen municipality (+5%), Rødovre (+9%)…

This map shows the internal net migration in 2022 as a percentage of the total population. This map shows the internal net migration in 2022 as a percentage of the total population. The small map shows the result on a regional level, and the big map on the municipal level. Internal (sometimes referred to as domestic) net migration refers to migration between municipalities and regions within the same country. International migration is excluded. In 2022, internal net migration was positive (indicated by shades of blue) or at least balanced (shown in yellow) in several municipalities in central and southern Sweden and Norway, as well as in central and northern Finland – areas that traditionally were more likely to lose population due to internal migration. Conversely, several municipalities in the capital regions – such as Stockholm, Oslo, and Copenhagen – exhibited negative internal net migration. Several municipalities across the Nordic Region, including in more remote and rural areas, continued to register positive internal net migration in this year. In Iceland, positive migration predominated in most of the municipalities, and the Faroe Islands also presented positive net migration. Greenland oscillated mainly between positive and negative migration flows, while Åland presented the whole spectrum of positive, balanced, and negative net migration for this year.

This Christmas, we’re gifting all fellow data nerds our first-ever interactive 3D map! The map displays the number of residents in each 1km grid cell, with the height of the bars representing the number of residents in each area.

A map portrays tertiary education attainment level around the Nordics, based on a grid level data.

A map portrays tertiary education attainment level around the Nordics.

The map presents a typology of internal net migration in regions by considering average annual internal net migration in 2020-2021 alongside the same figure for 2018-2019. The colours on the map correspond to six possible migration trajectories: Dark blue: Internal net in migration as an acceleration of an existing trend (net in-migration in 2020-2021 + increase compared to 2018-2019) Light blue: Internal net in migration but at a slower rate than previously (net in-migration in 2020-2021 + decrease compared to 2018-2019) Green: Internal net in migration as a new trend (net in-migration in 2020-2021 + change from net out-migration compared to 2018-2019) Yellow: Internal net out migration as a new trend (net out-migration in 2020-2021 + change from net in-migration compared to 2018-2019) Orange: Internal net out migration but at a slower rate than previously (net out-migration in 2020-2021 + decrease compared to 2018-2019) Red: Internal net out migration as a continuation of an existing trend (net out-migration in 2020-2021 + increase compared to 2018-2019)

The map presents a typology of internal net migration by considering average annual internal net migration in 2020-2021 alongside the same figure for 2018-2019. The colours on the map correspond to six possible migration trajectories: Dark blue: Internal net in migration as an acceleration of an existing trend (net in-migration in 2020-2021 + increase compared to 2018-2019) Light blue: Internal net in migration but at a slower rate than previously (net in-migration in 2020-2021 + decrease compared to 2018-2019) Green: Internal net in migration as a new trend (net in-migration in 2020-2021 + change from net out-migration compared to 2018-2019) Yellow: Internal net out migration as a new trend (net out-migration in 2020-2021 + change from net in-migration compared to 2018-2019) Orange: Internal net out migration but at a slower rate than previously (net out-migration in 2020-2021 + decrease compared to 2018-2019) Red: Internal net out migration as a continuation of an existing trend (net out-migration in 2020-2021 + increase compared to 2018-2019) The patterns shown around the larger cities reinforces the message of increased suburbanisation as well as growth in smaller cities in proximity to large ones. In addition, the map shows that this is in many cases an accelerated (dark blue circles), or even new development (green circles). Interestingly, although accelerated by the pandemic, internal out migration from the capitals and other large cities was an existing trend. Helsinki stands out as an exception in this regard, having gone from positive to negative internal net migration (yellow circles). Similarly, slower rates of in migration are evident in the two next largest Finnish cities, Tampere and Turku (light blue circles). Akureyri (Iceland) provides an interesting example of an intermediate city which began to attract residents during the pandemic despite experiencing internal outmigration prior. From a rural perspective there are…