Households’ access to basic broadband in 2018
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.
Degree of rurality at the municipal and regional level in 2017
This map shows the average distance to the edge of the closest urban area for the population living outside urban areas in the Nordic municipalities and regions. These figures are of particular interest in the analysis of urban-rural patterns and the Nordic populations’ access to local services in sparsely population areas. The darker shades on the map indicate longer average distances to the edge of the nearest urban area, and the lighter shades indicate shorter average distances. While almost all Danish municipalities have an average distance of below 10 km from rural grid cells to the nearest urban area, a large share of the municipal populations of the remaining Nordic countries need to contend with longer average distances to local services. The largest distances can be found in several municipalities of Iceland and Norway (Árneshreppur 230 km, Hasvik 154 km), whereas the largest average distances for Finnish and Swedish municipalities are considerably shorter (Enontekiö 103 km, Storuman 52 km). Regarding within-country variation, shorter average distances can generally be found in southwestern Finland and southern Sweden, in comparison with the more remote parts of these countries. Both Norway and Iceland provide a rather more mixed picture, since there are municipalities with shorter average distances scattered across different parts of each country. Method used to calculate the degree of rurality In order to take into account access to services such as grocery stores, pharmacies, schools, community centres and public transport, the European definition of urban grid cells was used to create this map, i.e. a population density threshold of 300 inhabitants per km2 applied to grid cells of 1 km2. The closest distance was calculated from each rural grid cell centroid to the nearest urban grid cell centroid along the existing road network traversable by car, including car ferries, based on population…
Smart specialisation domains in Swedish regions
This map gives an overview of the S3 focus areas in the Swedish regions in 2019. The major S3 domains in Sweden shown in the map provide a good overview of the key specialisation areas in Sweden. It is possible, for example, to check which Swedish regions have “green”, “sustainable”, “environment” at their smart specialisation domains (marked in green in their respective infoboxes for the domains in the figure). The information illustrated in the map can assist Swedish regions when they are considering opportunities for S3 synergy and co-operation with each other. In Sweden, the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (Tillväxtverket) is a central actor in assisting regions in their work with smart specialisation. Tillväxtverket promotes opportunities for cooperation between the Swedish regional S3 processes and provides relevant information and learning seminars related to S3. Read the digital publication here.
EU JRC S3 Platform 2019 in Nordic regions
This map shows the Nordic Regions that have registered on the EU JRC S3 platform, status as of October 2019. The regions that have registered on the S3 platform receive practical advice and broadened opportunities for international networking. In October 2019, there were 182 EU regions registered on the S3 platform, as well as 18 non-EU Member State regions. Of these regions, 38 are Nordic. It is worth noting that, as a non-EU member state, Norway has seven registered regions on the platform. Registration on the S3 platform is by no means a guarantee of success of a regional smart specialisation process, but it indicates the willingness of the region to learn more about S3 and to participate in international and interregional S3 cooperation through the possibilities provided by the S3 platform. The smart specialisation concept has been diffusing rapidly across Europe in the 2010s, as an increasing number of regions adopt it and design strategies departing from their own preconditions. The S3 platform in Seville, Spain, hosted by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), was established in 2011 to assist EU countries and regions to develop, implement and review their smart specialisation strategies. The S3 platform provides information, methodologies, expertise and advice to national and regional policymakers, promotes mutual learning and transnational co-operation, and contributes to academic debates around the concept of smart specialisation. Read the digital publication here.
Regional innovation scoreboard 2019
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.
Higher educational institutions in the Arctic
The map shows universities and other educational institutions on post-secondary and tertiary level located in the Arctic. The red circles indicate a location of a university, college, or campus areas within the Arctic. The size of the circle corresponds to the number of educational institutions in a specific location. There is a high density of educational education institutions around Anchorage (Alaska), in Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the Arctic Fennoscandia (see zoom-in maps). In the Yukon (Canada), the Yukon College is the main educational institution, which has several campus areas across the region. In the Russian Arctic the largest centres with higher educational institutions are in Murmansk, Naryan-Mar (Nenets), Nizhnevartovsk (Khanty-Mansi), Salekhard (Yamalo-Nenets), and Yakutsk (Sakha).
Settlements on permafrost in the Arctic
The map shows the distribution of coastal and inland settlements on permafrost in the Arctic in 2017. Permafrost is ground that is at or below 0°C for at least 2 consecutive years. The purple tones indicate settlements located on permafrost and distinguishes between coastal (light purple) and inland (dark purple) settlements. Settlements located outside the permafrost extent are in yellow. Among all Arctic settlements, 66,1% are located on permafrost. Settlements are classified as permafrost settlements if they are located within the permafrost extent, comprising zones of continuous, discontinuous, sporadic, or isolated permafrost. Among all permafrost settlements 46,0% are coastal. Coastal settlements are defined by their dependency to the sea. They are either adjacent to the coast, located inland along large rivers with a free connection to the open sea, or located within a short distance to the sea (0-200 km). In this map, coastal settlements comprise all settlements that are located within an Arctic subregion adjacent to the coast. Most of the settlements located outside the permafrost extent area are in the Nordic countries (Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Sweden, and Finland) as well as in the southern part of Alaska (USA) and the western part of the Russian Arctic. Almost all Arctic settlements in the Russian Federation and in Canada are located on permafrost. The increase in air surface temperature observed in the Arctic causes dramatic changes in the permafrost thermal regime leading to the destabilisation of infrastructure built on permafrost.
Land Cover in the Arctic
The terrestrial ecosystem of the Arctic is characterized by low tundra vegetation, composed of shrubs, herbaceous plants, mosses, and lichens. Arctic vegetation is becoming more productive due to increasing air temperature. One of the main trends shows an increase in tall shrub cover. On the contrary, the cover of lichen and moss has declined in response to regional warming.
Components of the cryosphere in the Arctic
This map shows the main components of the cryosphere in the Arctic: sea-ice, permafrost, ice-sheets, and glaciers. Sea-ice covers most of the Arctic Ocean during winter. The sea-ice extent reaches its maximum in March, when it covers approximately 14-16 million km2. Since 1979, the Arctic ice extent in winter has decreased by 3% per decade relative to the 1981-2010 average, and this trend accelerates. Similarly, ice-sheets and glaciers, which cover globally over 15 million km2 are melting. In the Arctic, the main ice-sheet is the Greenlandic ice sheet. Most of the land surface in the Arctic is underlay by permafrost, ground that is at or below 0°C for at least 2 consecutive years. The purple tones on the map indicates the extent of the northern circumpolar permafrost. Permafrost can occur as continuous (dark purple, 90-100% coverage), discontinuous (purple, 50-90% coverage), sporadic (light purple, 10-50%), or isolated patches (magenta, 0-10% coverage). Permafrost is thawing due to increased air temperatures and precipitations in the Arctic. Permafrost temperature increased by 0.29 ± 0.12°C between 2007 and 2016.
Protected areas in the Arctic
Within the northern circumpolar permafrost region, there are ca. 1300 protected areas. Most of these areas are terrestrial (1069), while 126 are coastal – defined as partially within the marine environment – and 62 are marine. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) includes a wide range of protected areas, including national protected areas recognized by the government, areas designated under regional and international conventions, privately protected areas and indigenous peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas. Greenland is one of the countries with the largest protected terrestrial area (41,0%).  IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2019), The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) [On-line], [January 2019]. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net.
Household access to high capacity fixed broadband 2016
This map shows the household access to high capacity fixed broadband for all Nordic municipalities in 2016. The blue shading indicates the percentage of household with access to high capacity fixed broadband speed of at least 30 mbit/s in 2016. The darker the blue the larger the percentage of household with access to high capacity fixed broadband speed in the municipality, while the brightest colours represent municipalities with a low share. The grey colour indicate municipality with no data. High capacity fixed broadband coverage enhances access to digital solutions in both rural and urban contexts across the Nordic Region, thus making these areas good places to live, work and run a business domestically and across national borders. At a municipal level the household coverage by high capacity fixed broadband shows a more varied picture than that at the regional level. The average figure for Nordic municipalities was 63% in 2016, with more homogeneous figures in Denmark and Sweden than in Norway and Finland. The variation between neighbouring municipalities reflects the decision at the municipal level to prioritise investments in broadband infrastructure development as well as the nurturing of a favourable climate for the establishment of data centres requiring fast broadband networks, among other things. Fifteen Nordic municipalities, located in Sweden and Norway, had already reached the 100% mark for household coverage by high capacity fixed broadband in 2016. In Sweden, these municipalities are located in both the capital city region and in Skåne. In Norway, they are found in the more remote and rural parts of Møre og Romsdal (e.g. Giske), Troms (i.e. Lavangen) and Finnmark regions (Båtsfjord). Municipalities having values above 90% are mostly located in capital city regions as well as in more rural contexts in Jylland (Denmark), southern Sweden and northern Finland and Norway. One explanation for…
Next Generation Access coverage 2016
This map shows the Next Generation Access (NGA) network coverage in European regions in 2016. The blue shading indicates the percentage of household covered by NGA broadband in European NUTS 3 regions. The darker the blue the larger the percentage of household covered by NGA broadband in the region, while the brightest colours represent regions with a low share. Regions with relatively small territories and important population densities stand out in terms of high NGA network coverage, e.g. urban regions in the Netherlands and Switzerland. Capital city regions also have high NGA network coverage scores, while the more rural regions continue to lag, e.g. in parts of France and Poland. The Nordic countries are characterised by having almost no differences within their territories, i.e. no large variation in terms of NGA network coverage, unlike the clear regional differences in countries such as France or Italy. All regions in the Nordic countries score in the range of 65% to 95% of households having NGA network coverage, except for Etelä-Pohjanmaa in Finland which has a coverage range of 35% to 65% and the Danish statistical region of Østjylland and the capital regions of Denmark and Iceland with scores between 95% and 100% respectively. The relatively high figures for the Nordic Region can in part be explained by the existence of national and regional digitalisation strategies over the last decade or so. In Denmark, as well as in the other Nordic countries, digitalisation has long been on the national agenda. One of the main goals of these strategies has been to increase the growth and productivity of the business community – and to make it easier and cheaper to establish digital infrastructure. The regional level has an important role to play in the development of digital infrastructure, hence the relevance of the elaboration…
Change of total R&D expenditure 2007-2015
This map shows the change in the expenditure in research and development (R&D) between 2007 and 2015 in the Nordic Region. The blue tones indicate regions with a positive change in the R&D expenditure between 2007 and 2015. The red tones indicate regions with a negative change in the R&D expenditure between 2007 and 2015. The darker the colour, the stronger the change. The grey colour indicates no data. The bars indicate the value of expenditure in R&D in million euros, the light brown for 2007 and the dark brown for 2015. The values of 2007 expenditures were adjusted to 2015 price level. High levels of Research and Development (R&D) expenditure are viewed as a vital enabling factor for innovation which is one of the key policy components of the Europe 2020 Strategy. At the regional level in Finland, most regions have shown a downward trend in R&D expenditures both in percentage and in real terms. This reflects the challenging fiscal policy and economic conditions experienced in Finland after the global financial crisis in 2008 and the difficulties faced by the ICT sector, where R&D is highly concentrated, as well as the inability of other industries to compensate for the decline of the ICT sector. Åland on the other hand has shown a positive trend in R&D expenditures, although having very low values in absolute numbers for both years. Sweden has experienced a dramatic decrease (< -6.1%) in R&D expenditures in Värmland, Blekinge and Gotland which was in large part, if not entirely, caused by the relocation of important R&D facilities/resources. Similarly, some major closures and redundancy notifications led to substantial cuts in R&D spending in Skåne in 2015, despite the increasing number of start-ups. For Iceland, available data for the 2013–2016 period indicates a steady and stable increase in…
Forest felling average 2013-2015
This map shows the forest felling at the regional level in the Nordic Region (average 2013-2015). The chart shows the forest felling by category in 1,000 m3 at the national level in the Nordic Region in 2015. On the map, the green bars indicate the average 2013-2015 forest felling. The higher the bar, the greater the forest felling in the region. The grey colour indicates regions with no data. The chart shows different forest felling categories in 1,000 m3 in 2015. The dark brown represents logs or timber, the light brown represents pulpwood, and the dark grey the energywood. The Nordic Region has a large potential for forest multi-use. Sweden and Finland have the largest forest felling in 1,000 m3, with the greatest use in logs and timber. Wood bi-products is extensively used for energy purposes and the forests display a large potential for increasing the production of renewable energy as well as other bio-based products.
These maps show the energy produced by biogas (in GWh) as well as the number of facilities producing bioenergy in the Swedish regions. The maps also show the location and type of biogas plants in Denmark, Finland, and Iceland. The brown shading indicates the produced energy in GWh in each region. The darker the brown, the larger the energy produced. The black circles are proportional to the number of facilities producing bioenergy in the Swedish region. The location of biogas plants in Denmark, Finland, and Iceland is indicated by coloured circles. The colours indicate the type of biogas plant. Biogas production is widely distributed across the Nordic Region and between the types of sources used. In 2015, 18% of the energy use in Denmark came from biomass and waste. In the western part of Denmark, biogas is mainly based on manure from farms supplemented with sludge and organic waste from wastewater plants. The vast infrastructure for gas makes it easy and accessible for farmers to link biogas to the existing energy net. The largest numbers of plants in Finland are based on farms and landfills. In 2015 in Sweden, 282 facilities produced 1947 GWh biogas with the largest regional production being in Skåne (417.5 GWh), Västra Götaland (350.9), and Stockholm (255.8). Iceland had a biogas facility in Reykjavík at Álfsnes landfill with plans for expansion in 2018.
Land cover 2012
This map shows the land cover in the Nordic Region in 2012. Land cover data indicates the physical land type, helping to understand the current landscape of an area. The different colours represent land cover types with urban/artificial surfaces in red, agricultural areas in orange, forests in green, scrub and herbaceous vegetation in yellow, bare ground in grey, water bodies in blue and glaciers and perpetual snow in white. There are significant differences between the Nordic countries in terms of their land use. Denmark is largely agricultural (62%), while Finland (73%), a large part of Sweden (69%) and south-eastern Norway (28%) are all dominated by forest, mainly coniferous. Iceland and the Faroe Islands have large areas of scrub and herbaceous vegetation, suitable for grazing livestock. Open land with little vegetation is significant for many regions in Norway and Iceland. Vast parts of Greenland and parts of Iceland are glaciers. The Nordic countries all have long coastlines and easy access to marine resources. The map is a Corine 2012 raster DB (V. 18.5) at 100m resolution from the European Environmental Agency and the Copernicus program, with funding by the European Union. For Faeroe Islands and Greenland the data is from GlobCover 2009 land cover, ESA 2010 and UCLouvain (harmonization by Nordregio).
European eco-innovation parks in 2014
This map shows the location of the European eco-innovation parks in the states of the European Union (EU) and Iceland in 2014. The eco-innovation parks are eco-industrial parks and eco-innovative areas combining residential and industrial activities. The establishment of eco-industrial parks is one way to promote eco-innovation, resource efficiency and the circular economy. They create new and innovative business opportunities and improve ecosystems. The blue colour indicates the EU-member states having at least one identified eco-innovation park in 2014. The circles indicate the location and the type of the eco-innovation parks (green, in use; yellow, under construction; brown, planned; red, stopped). The grey colour indicates no data. A clear spatial concentration of eco-innovation parks can be observed in the Ruhr area and around Leipzig (Germany), in southern Belgium, south-western and northern Netherlands, western Switzerland, along the “arch” stretching from Turin via Pisa to Udine in North-East Italy, around Barcelona as well as around some national borders in the industrialised parts of north-West Europe namely Germany-Netherlands-Belgium-France and Switzerland. Eco-innovation parks differ in many respects, for instance regarding energy and material flows (e.g. waste heat, steam, power; wood chips, bark, ash, pulping chemicals), number and size of companies involved and jobs created, public sector involvement and finally, in terms of (the drivers behind) their evolution. The latter means that some parks evolved and expanded around a few economic activities and companies (e.g. saw mills) to include further activities (e.g. pulp mills, power plants etc.), while others were intentionally planned and put into operation.