Maps

Remove all filtering

33 Maps

Change in new registered cars 2019-2020

The map shows the change in new registered passenger cars from 2019 to 2020. In most countries, the number of car registrations fell in 2020 compared to 2019. On a global scale, it is estimated that sales of motor vehicles fell by 14%. In the EU, passenger car registrations during the first three quarters of 2020 dropped by 28.8%. The recovery of consumption during Q4 2020 brought the total contraction for the year down to 23.7%, or 3 million fewer cars sold than in 2019. In the Nordic countries, consumer behaviour was consistent overall with the EU and the rest of the world. However, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Åland, and Denmark recorded falls of 22%–11% – a far more severe decline than Norway, where the market only fell by 2.0%. The Faroe Islands was the only Nordic country to record more car registrations, up 15.8% in 2020 compared to 2019.  In Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, there were differences in car registrations in different parts of the country. In Sweden and Finland, the position was more or less the same in the whole of the country, with only a few municipalities sticking out. In Finland and Sweden, net increases in car registrations were concentrated in rural areas, while in major urban areas, such as Uusimaa-Nyland in Finland and Västra Götaland and Stockholm in Sweden, car sales fell between 10%–22%. Net increases in Norway were recorded in many municipalities throughout the whole country in 2020 compared to 2019.

Cross-border commuting as share of employment

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. 

Travel time by train from Copenhagen or Malmö

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…

Mobility changes due to COVID-19

This map shows the difference in mobility to workplaces between a weekday (April 23rd, 2020) and the corresponding weekday during the period January 7th to February 6th, 2020 (in percent). The data highlights the percent change in visits to workplaces within each administrative region in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Data is not available for the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Åland. Read more about the data here. The average value of the Nordic regions included in the map is a reduction by 34% of the number of visits to workplaces on April 23rd (in comparison to a baseline). This average value hides large variations within the Nordic Region with the most modest change occurring in Gotland (-12%) and the most severe change in Oslo (-57%). More generally, variations can be identified both between and within countries. The variations between countries reveal differences in recommendations and restrictions from published by the different national governments. Details for each country have been gathered by Info Norden and can be found here. As a result, the change in visits to workplaces decreased by 26% in Sweden, 39% in Denmark, 41% in Norway and 47% in Finland. The variations within countries also reveal differences in government´s decisions (e.g. lockdown of the Helsinki-Uusimaa region reducing the mobility to workplaces by 53%), but not only. There are indeed a number of local characteristics of the labour markets that contribute at explaining that the largest changes in mobility to workplaces are found in capital city regions. These local characteristics are a greater dependency on public transport for commuters, who are adviced to avoid using such means of transportation under the COVID-19 context; and having a higher share of jobs that can be done by teleworking, among others.

Airports in the Arctic 2019

Long distances in combination to the lack of road and railroad connections and seasonal accessibility of water transport makes airports an important element of local accessibility in the Arctic. There are only a few large airports in the Arctic with regular air connections to national capitals or other main cities more south – or abroad – however, there is a large number of small airports. The ca. 1300 airports and heliports of the Arctic are shown on the map. Seven large and 260 medium sized airports with regular passenger traffic are the main airport infrastructure in the Arctic. Small airports are shown on the map in two categories, those with IATA code and those without. There are 265 small airports with an IATA code and most of these airports have regular air traffic. The small airports without an IATA code are 500 and comprise small airports with some scheduled traffic to airports for spare time aviation and landing sites. In addition, there are some 60 airports – mostly in the Russian Federation – that are not classified due to a lack of data regarding their size. The aviation in Greenland heavily depends on heliports. Many Greenlandic settlements are located along the shore, in small islands, fjords, or adjacent to mountains – in place where building an airport would be impossible or very expensive due to challenging physical conditions. In Greenland all the settlements have either an airport or a heliport depending on the size of the settlement and physical conditions. In other Nordic Arctic regions, the airports are located in the main settlements or in isolated islands. Almost all remaining settlements have road connection to an airport or a heliport. In the Canadian Arctic and Alaska (USA) almost all settlements have an airport. In the Russian Arctic the number of…

Sea Routes and Ports in the Arctic

The main and secondary zones for maritime traffic are based on 2017 vessel traffic data gathered on Automatic Identification System (AIS) by Marine Traffic (blue colours on map). The data shows the locations of vessels during their travels. The main transport areas are in Northern Europe – from Iceland to the Kara Sea through the Norwegian coast – and along the coast of Alaska (USA). Cargo ships as well as government vessels, including icebreakers, account for the largest share of the traffic in the Arctic. The number of tourism-related shipping activity and private yachts is increasing. The main transport corridors in the Arctic, the Northern Sea Route in the Russian Federation, the Northwest Passage in Canada and the Arctic Bridge from Canada to Europe have all experienced significant growth in the maritime traffic in the recent years. The Northern Sea Route is the shortest route between Europe and the Asia-Pacific region is competing with traditional trade lines. Between 2016 and 2017 the cargo volume in Northern Sea Route increased by nearly 40%. In the Canadian Arctic the traffic has almost tripled between 1990-2015. When it comes to the increasing maritime traffic in the Arctic, the interests of economic potentials and challenging physical conditions are balancing. Even if the sea ice coverage is decreasing, the Arctic region is still a challenging environment. In the wintertime ice floes lack predictability and the conditions vary seasonally. Traveling across multiyear ice – that can be more than three meters thick – is challenging even for icebreakers which progress better across first-year ice – less than one meter thick. Icebreaker escorts in the wintertime are not only costly but are also limiting the maximum width of the vessel escorted. During the open water season the transit is often challenging due to severe storms or heavy…

Road accessibility of Arctic settlements

The accessibility of Arctic settlements by road is illustrated in this map showing the road network in the Arctic. The distribution of permafrost is displayed as a background layer indicating physical condition underneath the road infrastructure. The road infrastructure is considerably less dense on continuous permafrost-covered land. There are road connections in the Arctic that are only open for transport during winter time, but they are not distinguished in the map. Settlements in vast area of Greenland, Nunavut, Nunavik, and Labrador (Canada) are not connected by road network but scarcely road segments connecting adjacent settlements. Thus, travel by road remains a challenge for many of the inhabitants in these regions. Alaska (USA), the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon (Canada) have better road infrastructure with some of the major road network. There, most of the settlements are accessible via roads. The road network in the Nordic Arctic regions – except Greenland – are considerably denser than in other parts of the Arctic and most of the settlements are connected to the road network. In Greenland all transportation between cities is with aircraft, helicopter or boat. In the Russian Arctic, the road network is accessible for inhabitants living in most of the settlements, except in the Krasnoyarsk region, where only road segments exist in the neighbourhood of settlements. Railways in the Arctic are sparse. A few railroads are connecting settlements in the Nordic Arctic and East Russia. There is a handful of railroads in most of the Russian Arctic, Alaska (USA), and Canada.

Nordic cross-border road projects

Identified by Nordic cross-border committees in 2017 The cross-border road projects shown on the map are meant to show the importance of further development of movements and infrastructure plans across Nordic national borders, in opposition to infrastructure projects which are drawn up primarily within a national context, without a specific focus on cross-border linkages. The map shows that the Nordic cross-border committees have identified a number of planned or envisaged cross-border road projects which are considered important for the development of cross-border transport in the Nordic region. It should be noted that the road projects and stretches included in the map are solely those identified from the view of Nordic cross-border committees, as examples of projects with potential to further enhance Nordic cross-border road movements at a Nordic level. In the map, there’s no differentiation between already planned and visionary projects; nor between local and global cross-border projects, or between projects with a limited geographic coverage and generic, large-scale infrastructure corridors. Envisaged or planned road projects limited to a national context have generally been excluded from the map, as have those cross-border projects that do not relate to Nordic cross-border committees. Related: ARKO Greater Copenhagen & Skåne Committee Hedmark – Dalarna Kvarken Council Midnordic Region MidtSkandia North Calotte Council Svinesund Committee Värmland – Østfold

Nordic cross-border infrastructure projects

Identified by Nordic cross-border committees in 2017 The cross-border infrastructure projects shown on the map are designed to show the importance of further development of movements and infrastructure plans across Nordic national borders, in opposition to infrastructure projects which are drawn up primarily within a national context, without a specific focus on cross-border linkages. As can be seen on the map, the Nordic cross-border committees have identified a number of planned or envisaged cross-border infrastructure projects which are considered important for the development of cross-border transport in the Nordic region. It should be noted that the projects and stretches included in the map are solely those identified from the view of Nordic cross-border committees, as examples of projects with potential to further enhance Nordic cross-border movements at a Nordic level. In the map, there’s no differentiation between already planned and visionary projects; nor between local and global cross-border projects, or between projects with a limited geographic coverage and generic, large-scale infrastructure corridors. Envisaged or planned infrastructure projects limited to a national context have generally been excluded from the map, as have those cross-border projects that do not relate to Nordic cross-border committees. Related: ARKO Greater Copenhagen & Skåne Committee Hedmark – Dalarna Kvarken Council Midnordic Region MidtSkandia North Calotte Council Svinesund Committee Värmland – Østfold