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 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.

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 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…

The map shows the average internal net migration in 2020 and 2021 for Nordic municipalities. Blue dots indicate positive internal net migration (more people moving in than out) and red dots indicate negative internal net migration (more people moving out than in), while the size of the dots represents the extent of the positive or negative trend. Internal migration refers to a change of address within the same country. The map shows substantial outmigration from the Nordic capitals, as well as from Gothenburg and Malmö in Sweden. Alongside increased suburbanisation, the map also provides some evidence of growth in medium-sized cities and smaller cities within commuting distance of larger cities.    

The map shows the type (positive or negative) and size of population change from 2010 to 2019 in all nordic municipalities. In Finland, Denmark, and Greenland there is a clear pattern of population growth in and around the larger cities and population decline in rural areas. Geographical and administrative differences mean that a much larger number of rural municipalities in Finland are dealing with population decline. Sweden experienced substantial population growth between 2010 and 2019, primarily due to high levels of international immigration. As a result, many rural areas also experienced population growth, particularly in the south of Sweden. However, in the more sparsely populated municipalities in the north of Sweden, the pattern is somewhat similar to that observed in Denmark and Finland, albeit with population decline in lower absolute numbers. Both Iceland and the Faroe Islands experienced substantial growth of their tourism industries within the period. This enabled some rural areas to maintain or even grow their populations. Norway exhibits more balanced population development in general, with a mix of population growth and decline in rural areas throughout the country.

The map shows the population change by component 2020. The map is related to the same map showing regional and municipal patterns in population change by component in 2010-2019. 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 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 internal net migration in 2020. The map is related to the same map showing net internal migration in 2010-2019. 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 decide to…

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 international net migration in 2020. The map is related to the same map showing net migration in 2010-2019. 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 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 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.

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.