The Cross-Border Cooperation in Sweden - Norway

Transcription

The Cross-Border Cooperation in
Sweden - Norway
Geographic synthesis of INTERREG-A Territorial impacts
EDUARDO JOSÉ ROCHA MEDEIROS
Lisboa 2009
2
Table of contents
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………………
3
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………….
5
Territory
Studied area………………………………………………………………………………………
Sub-regions……………………………………………………………………………………….
INTERREG II-A
Axes and goals…………………………………………………………………………………...
Projects distribution………………………………………………………………………………
Investment distribution…………………………………………………………………………..
Managing authorities…………………………………………………………………………….
INTERREG III-A
Axes and goals…………………………………………………………………………………..
Projects distribution………………………………………………………………………………
Investment distribution…………………………………………………………………………..
Managing authorities…………………………………………………………………………….
Demographic dynamics
Population density and variation - counties…………………………………………………...
Population variation - NUTS III…………………………………………………………………
Birth rate and mortality…………………………………………………………………………..
SNBR………………………………………………………………………………………..…….
Socioeconomic development
Socioeconomic development index (IDSE)……………………………………………………
Social development index (IDS) and economic development index (IDE)…………….….
Relation between IDE and IDS…………………………………………………………………
Relation between INTERREG-A and socioeconomic cohesion……………………………
Urban system
MEGAS and FUAS………………………………………………………………………….……
The urban agglomerations………………………………………………………………………
Urban agglomerations hierarchy……………………………………………………………….
Urban agglomerations localization……………………………………………………………..
Urban agglomerations population growth……………………………………………………..
Urban agglomerations distribution……………………………………………………………..
Urban agglomerations connectivity ……………………………………………………………
Fluxes - urban cooperation……………………………………………………………………..
Fluxes – Cross-border cooperation……………………………………………………………
Complementarity - economic activity…………………………………………………………..
Complementarity - SWOT map…………………………………………………………………
Complementarity - economic activity sectors…………………………………………………
Complementarity - urban functions…………………………………………………………….
Fluxes - road……………………………………………………………………………………..
Fluxes - public road transportations……………………………………………………………
Fluxes - railway…………………………………………………………………………………..
Fluxes - cross border migrations ………………………………………………………………
Fluxes - migrations ………………………..…………………………………………………….
Territorial articulation…………………………………………………………………………….
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
3
Table of contents
Cross border cooperation (CBC)
Barrier effect dimensions………………………………………………………………………..
Institutional/Urban - CBC associations and cabinets………………………………………..
Institutional/Urban - INTERREG-A contribution………………………………………………
46
47
49
Social/Cultural - culture and CB equipments………………………………………………….
Social/Cultural - INTERREG-A contribution…………………………………………………..
Environmental/heritage - protected areas……………………………………………………..
Environmental/heritage - world heritage……………………………………………………….
Environmental/heritage - heritage initiatives………………………………………………….
Environmental/heritage - tourism……………………………………………………………….
Environmental/heritage - INTERREG-A contribution………………………………………...
Accessibility - average daily road traffic……………………………………………………….
Accessibility - road network…………………………………………………………………….
Accessibility - railway network………………………………………………………………….
Accessibility - airport network…………………………………………………………………..
Accessibility - INTERREG-A contribution……………………………………………………..
Economy/technology - trade…………………………………………………………………….
Economy/technology - companies……………………………………………………………..
Economy/technology - INTERREG-A contribution…………………………………………..
Cross Border Cooperation Models……………………………………………………………..
Cross Border Cooperation Models - parameters – SR6 and SR7…..……………………..
Cross Border Cooperation Models - parameters – SR8 and SNBR………………………..
Axes of CBC………………………………………………………………………………………
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Contacted persons and entities…………………………………………………………………….
69
Cross border itineraries……………………………………………………………………………..
Cross border itinerary – SR1…………………………………………………………………..
71
72
73
References……………………………………………………………………………………………
74
4
ABSTRACT
We spent the last couple of years working in our PhD, which intends to
contribute to a better understanding of the cross-border cooperation (CBC)
process, promoted by the INTERREG-A comunitary initiative, during its first
three generations (1990-2006), in two border areas: Portugal – Spain and
Sweden (S) – Norway (N).
During the last moths we dedicated our time exclusively to the study of the
second region (SNBR). Its preparation has involved extensive consultation at
local and regional levels, and as implied also the collection and processing of a
significant amount of data.
In the course of these consultations, we became aware of a strong interest in
the investigation we’re conducting. Therefore, and since we had a commitment
to send the results obtained from non-published data, provided by some
entities, and knowing that the whole compilation will only be available at the end
of 2010, we decided to compile a smaller publication, based on some of the
cartographic and graphic information that we think can be useful to the decisionmaking process, to reinforce the crystallization of the CBC in SNBR, during the
2007-2013 period.
Once again, we want to stress out that this publication intends to provide a
geographic overview and a preliminary assessment of the territorial impacts of
the CBC process in the SNBR, during the first two INTERREG-A (Swe-Nor)
generations, that will be subjected to a more profound discussion and
evaluation in our investigation final paper.
Keywords: Cross-border Cooperation, INTERREG-A, Portuguese and Spanish
border area, Barrier Effect, Urban System, Cross-Border Fluxes.
5
Territory – Studied area
Fig. 1: Border NUTS III between Sweden and Norway
Sweden
Nord-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Jämtlands län
Norway
Sør-Trøndelag
Hedmark
Dalarnas län
Akershus
Akershus Värmlands län
Country
Østfold
Västra Götalands län
NUTS III
0
250 Km
Source: Author Cartography
The area that we study in this publication corresponds to the border NUTS
III between Sweden and Norway, affected to the INTERREG-A Swe-Nor
Programme (fig.1).
Sweden: Jämtlands län; Dalarnas län; Värmlands län; Västra Götalands län.
Norway: Nord-Trøndelag; Sør-Trøndelag; Hedmark; Akershus; Østfold.
6
Territory – Sub-regions
Fig. 2: Border sub-regions between Sweden and Norway
Nordic Green Belt (NGB – SR6)
Inner Scandinavia (IS – SR7)
Borderless Co-operation
(BC – SR8)
INTERREG-A
Country
Border
Sub-regions
0
250 Km
Table 1: SNBR NUTS III data - 2001
Territorial
Unit
Sweden
Norway
Swe-Nor
Swedish Border
Norwegian Border
SNBR
Area
(km2)
410.335
307.498
717.833
119.164
73.492
192.656
%
%
Population
Population
Territory
2001
100 9.047.752
100
100 4.640.219
100
100 13.687.971
100
29.0 2.204.526
24.4
23.9 1.354.122
29.2
26.8 3.558.648
26.0
Density
(inh/km2)
22
15
19
23
41
32
Source: Data: SCB + SSB - Adapted
The analysis of the cross-border cooperation (CBC) process in SNBR, in this
publication, takes into account three cross-border (CB) sub-regions, each
one of them composed by several NUTS III (fig. 2).
SNBR represents approximately 27% of Scandinavian Peninsula (SP)
territory, and almost 26% of its population (table 1).
SNBR doesn’t correspond exactly to the INTERREG-A Swe-Nor area. Yet,
for practical reasons, concerning the availability of comparable data, we
decided to include the whole area of Dalarna and Västra Götaland NUTS III.
7
INTERREG-A II (1994-1999) – Axes and goals
Fig. 3 e 4: Projects (%) and investment (%) - INTERREG II-A
(% projects)
45
(% Investment)
40
40,61
40
35
30
36,24
35
30
29,12
26,05
OBJ1
25
OBJ2
20
OBJ3
OBJ4
15
25,77
25
4,21
5
OBJ2
OBJ3
20
OBJ4
15
10
10
OBJ1
24,35
8,41
5
0
0
Source: Data: Interreg-A database – Author compilation
Intervention axis:
OBJ1 – Enterprises development
OBJ2 – Competence development
OBJ3 – Culture, tourism, information, transports and services
OBJ4 – Quality of life, environment and health
General goals:
Promote employment;
Preserve the natural and cultural environment;
Encourage the equality between men and women;
Promote the quality of life of the local population.
In this INTERREG-A generation, each one of the three sub-regions had its
own intervention axis, which can be fit in the four objectives presented in fig.
3 and 4.
The first one (enterprises development) was the one that had more
approved projects and received more funds. Nevertheless, the investment
on the competence development and on the culture-tourism-informationtransports-services axis was also important (close to 25%).
Lastly, the fourth axis (quality of life–environment-health), didn’t reach the
10% of the total investment.
8
INTERREG-A II (1994-1999) – Projects distribution
Fig. 5 - Projects (%) by NUTS III - INTERREG II-A
%
1
2-4
5 - 20
21 - 26
27 - 45
Country
Border NUTS III
0
250 Km
In Sweden, the Jämtland NUT III was the one that had more approved
projects (45%), followed by Värmland and Vastra Götaland (fig. 5). On the
opposite side is Dalarna NUT III (4%), which has only its two close to the
border counties included in the INTERREG-A programme.
In Norway, the distribution of the projects was also quite uneven: the Østfold
NUTIII came in first place, with 35% of the approved projects in the
Norwegian border territory, followed by Nord-Trøndelag, Sør-trondelag and
Hedmark (20-25%). Finally, the Akershus NUTIII was the one with fewer
approved projects.
9
INTERREG-A II (1994-1999) - investment distribution
Fig. 6 - investment (%) by NUTS III - INTERREG II-A
%
1-4
5 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 32
33 - 47
Country
Border NUTS III
0
250 Km
When it comes to the investment distribution in the Swedish border area, a
different picture is showed in fig.6: the Västra Götaland NUT III was the one
that got the biggest piece of the investment in this generation of INTERREGA (41% of the total of the Swedish border area), and was followed by
Jämtland NUT III (32%). It is important to notice also that the southern part
of Sweden received almost 65% of the total INTERREG-A II investment.
In Norway, it was the Østfold NUT III that received the biggest part of the
investment (47% in all the Norwegian border area), and after came the
Hedmark (21%), Nord-Trøndelag (18%) and the Sør-Trondelag (14%) NUTS
III.
In general, we can say that in this second INTERREG-A generation, the
distribution of the investment showed an imbalanced distribution across the
SNBR territory, because it was more concentrated in the BorderlessCooperation sub-region (SR8), which belongs to the Oslo-Gotemburg
demographic – economic dynamic axis.
10
INTERREG-A II (1994-1999) - Managing authorities
Fig. 7- 8: Managing authorities - INTERREG II-A (S)
(% Investment)
(% projects)
60
70
54,79
59,77
60
50
CM
40
20
INSPUB
ENTID.REG
30
ENTID.REG
UNIVER
20
17,62
16,09
11,49
CM
40
INSPUB
30
50
10
10
0
0
16,30
15,02
UNIVER
8,91
Fig. 9 - 10: Managing authorities - INTERREG II-A (N)
(%(%
deprojects)
projectos)
(%(%
deinvestment)
Investimento)
50
44,44
40
30
20
CM
27,97
INSPUB
ENTID.REG
16,86
10,73
10
0
UNIVER
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
44,84
CM
27,93
INSPUB
ENTID.REG
13,15
14,08
UNIVER
CM - Counties; INSPUB - Public institutes; ENT.REG – Regional associations; UNIVER Universities
In Sweden, we can see that the role of the regional associations was of
great importance in the CBC process, both in the approved projects (fig. 7)
and in the financing percentage (fig. 8). It’s also important to stress out the
participation of the entities associated with the universities and other kind of
investigation entities, in the elaboration of the INTERREG-A projects, in this
generation.
In Norway, the scenario wasn’t that different, since the regional associations
participated in almost 45% of the approved projects. Yet, the figures 9 and
10 show us that the participation of the local authorities was more significant
than the one occurred in the Swedish side of the border.
These results reveal the importance of the regional decision level in both
Scandinavian countries in the territory issues, which is, in our opinion, the
best approach to explore the territory potentials.
11
INTERREG-A III (2000-2006) - Axes and goals
Fig. 11 - 12: Projects (%) and investment (%) - INTERREG II-A
(% Investment)
(% Projects)
60
60
50
48,34
53,28
49,45
50
40
Axis A
Axis B
30
20
Axis C
20
2,21
0
Axis A
40
30
10
43,16
Axis B
Axis C
10
3,56
0
Intervention axes:
AXIS 1 - Economic growth and skills development
AXIS 2 - Living conditions and social development
AXIS 3 - Technical assistance
General goals:
Eliminate trade barriers;
Develop the economy and the quality of life on the border area;
Reinforce the local traditions;
Promote the contacts between local actors.
In this INTERREG–A generation, the approved projects were included in two
important action priorities. The second one (living conditions and social
development) received more 10% of funds than the first (economic growth
and skills development) yet, one can state that there was an homogeneous
distribution of the projects (fig. 11) and the investment (fig. 12), in both axis.
If we go into a more detailed analysis, one can also say the measures
concerning the (i) knowledge and competence, (ii) development of
entrepreneurship, and (iii) culture/identity, were privileged with more
approved projects, in this INTERREG-A generation.
12
INTERREG-A III (2000-2006) - Projects distribution
Fig. 13 - Projects (%) by NUTS III - INTERREG III-A
%
3-4
5 - 16
17 - 27
28 - 35
36 - 41
Country
Border NUTS III
0
250 Km
There were some slightly variations in the distribution of the approved
projects, in this third generation, compared with the previous one, on the
Swedish side of the border, with the two southern NUTS III (Värmland –
32% and Västra Götaland – 35%) taking a bigger piece of the cake from
Jämtland NUT III (30%).
On the other hand, in Norway, the distribution of the projects had a similar
aspect of the INTERREG-A II, that is, the Østfold NUT III received the lion
part of the investment (40%), and the Hedmark NUT III came right after with
21%.
Overall, one can say that, the southern part of the border, located in the
most dynamic axis (Oslo-Gotemburg) was the one that had the highest
number of approved projects (fig. 13). When it comes to the NUTS III, the
Akershus and Dalarna continued to stand on the last positions, in this
concern (fig. 13).
13
INTERREG-A III (2000-2006) - investment distribution
Fig. 14 - investment (%) by NUTS III - INTERREG III-A
%
2-5
6 - 15
16 - 21
22 - 30
31 - 40
Country
Border NUTS III
0
250 Km
In Sweden, the border NUT III of Västra Götaland was, once again, the one
that received the highest volume of investment in the third generation of
INTERREG-A (37% of the Swedish border area), followed by Jämtland
(30%) and Värmland (27%) NUTS III (fig. 14).
In Norway, Østfold NUT III was, once again, the one that received the
highest volume of investment (40% of the total in the Norwegian border
area), followed by Hedmark (21%), Nørd-Trondelag (15%) and SørTrondelag (15%) NUTS III.
In general, one can say that this third generation of the INTERREG-A
presented a similar distribution of the investment observed in the previous
INTERREG-A generation: it was stronger in the southern part of the border
area, where the population density is higher and the economic activity is
stronger.
14
INTERREG-A III (2000-2006) - Managing authorities
Fig. 15 - 16: Managing authorities - INTERREG III-A (S)
(%(%
deprojects)
projectos)
40
(%
de
Investimento)
(%
investment)
35
36,16
29,81
33,95
35
30
30
CM
25
20
15,87
14,02
15
10
26,89
29,15
25
INSPUB
20
ENTID.REG
15
UNIVER
10
5
5
0
0
CM
INSPUB
14,15
ENTID.REG
UNIVER
Fig. 17 - 18: Managing authorities - INTERREG III-A (N)
(%(%
deprojects)
projectos)
(%
investment)
(%
de
Investimento)
45
40
35
40,22
35,42
33,12
32,78
30
35
30
CM
25
25
INSPUB
20
ENTID.REG
15
20
15
10
15,13
9,23
UNIVER
CM
20,05
INSPUB
14,05
10
5
5
0
0
ENTID.REG
UNIVER
CM - Counties; INSPUB - Public institutes; ENT.REG - Regional associations; UNIVER Universities
In Sweden, the local counties emerged to the top position, both in the
approved projects (fig. 15), and in the investment (fig. 16). Right after, came
the public institutes and investigation/teaching entities.
In Norway, the changes from the previous INTERREG-A generations
weren’t so drastic. Nevertheless, the local authorities raised their presence
both in the approved projects (fig. 17) and in investment (fig. 18), but the
regional associations maintained the pole position in both aspects.
In brief, in this INTERREG-A generation, the participation of the local actors
increased in both sides of the border, especially in the Swedish side. Then
again, the entities associated with university investigation maintained their
percentages of participation in the INTERREG-A projects.
15
Demographic dynamics - Density and change in population - counties
Fig. 19: Population density in 2006 - Counties
inhab. km2
< 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
50 - 100
> 100
Country
Border
SUB-regions
0
250 Km
Source: Data: SCB + SSB - Author Cartography
Fig. 20: Population change 1993-2007 (%) - Counties
%
<0
0 - 10
10 - 20
20 - 50
> 50
Country
Border
SUB-regions
0
250 Km
16
Demographic dynamics – Population change
Fig. 21: Population change in the Scandinavia Peninsula NUTS III (1991-2005)
%
-6,6 : -3,5
-3,5 : 0,7
0,7 : 4,4
4,3 : 10,5
10,5 : 17,9
Country
Border
NUTS III
250 Km
Table 2: Population data in SNBR NUTS III
Territorial
Population
Change 93-06
Unit
1993
2001
2006
Absolute
Jämtlands län
136.073
128.586
127.028
-9.045
Dalarnas län
290.515
277.010
275.755
-14.760
Värmlands län
285.220
273.933
273.288
-11.932
Västra Götalands län
1.464.073 1.500.857 1.528.455
64.382
Swedish border
2.175.881 2.180.386 2.204.526
28.645
Sweden
8.745.109 8.909.128 9.047.752
302.643
Nord-Trøndelag
127.414
127.457
128.694
1.280
Sør-Trøndelag
253.688
266.323
275.403
21.715
Hedmark
187.321
187.965
188.511
1.190
Akershus
424.935
199.002
501.125
76.190
Østfold
238.648
252.746
260.389
21.741
Norwegian border
1.232.006 1.033.493 1.354.122
122.116
Norway
8.745.109 8.909.128 9.047.752
302.643
Sweden and Norway 13.044.276 13.433.194 13.687.971
643.695
3.407.887 3.213.879 3.558.648
150.761
SNBR
Source: SCB + SSB – Author compilation
17
Demographic dynamics – Birth rate and mortality rate
Fig. 22: Birth rate - NUTS III (2005)
‰
9,0 : 9,8
9,8 : 10,8
10,8 : 11,9
11,9 : 14,7
14,7 : 17,5
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
Fig. 23: Mortality rate - NUTS III (2005)
‰
6,9 : 7,7
7,7 : 9,0
9,0 : 10,1
10,1 : 11,4
11,4 : 12,5
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
18
Demographic dynamics - SNBR
Fig. 24: Demographic dynamics – Border NUTS III (1993-2005)
Positive
None
Negative
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
The SNBR is, in general, a territory with low population densities. This is
especially true in the central and northern part of this region, which contrasts
with the high population densities observed in the surroundings of Oslo,
Trondheim and Gothenburg cities (fig. 19).
On the NUTS III level, the Swedish border area experienced, in the last
decade, significant decreases in its population contingent, except in Västra
Götaland. In contrast, there were population increases in the entire
Norwegian border NUTS III, in spite of the population losses in some border
counties (fig. 20 - table 2).
Birth and deaths also shape the demographic structure of this territory,
where a combination of several factors (mostly economic), show a general
trend of high mortality rates and low birth rates in the SNBR. This is
especially problematic in Hedmark (N), Dalarna (S) and Värmland (S) NUTS
III (fig. 21 – 22).
In terms of the demographic dynamics, one can say that there is a positive
correlation between the urbanized areas and a positive demographic
dynamic, witnessed by the positive urban influence of Trondheim, Oslo and
Gothenburg cities (fig. 23).
19
Socioeconomic dynamics – Socioeconomic development
Fig. 25: Socioeconomic development index (IDSE) - 1993 to 2006
0,009 - 0,08
0,08 - 0,11
0,11 - 0,19
0,19 - 0,35
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
Table 3: Indicators used in the construction of the IDSE
Nº
1 GNP per capita
2 Activity rate
3 Enterprises (10000 hab.)
Economic cohesion
Indicator
Social cohesion
Nº
Indicator
1 Proportion of population with university degree (%)
2 Physics (1000 hab.)
3 Libraries (10000 hab.)
Domain
Quality of life
Jobs
Economy
Domain
Education
Health
Leisure and culture
Significant growth: NUTS III - Sør –Trøndelag
Above average growth: NUTS III - Nord-Trøndelag, Hedmark, Akershus and
Østfold;
Below average growth: NUTS III - Jämtlands län, Dalarnas län and Västra
Götalands län;
Insignificant growth: NUTS III - Värmlands län.
20
Socioeconomic dynamics – Social and economic development
Fig. 26: Social development index (IDS) - 1993 to 2006
0,0 - 0,07
0,07 - 0,9
0,09 - 0,14
0,14 - 0,56
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
Fig. 27: Economic development index (IDE) - 1993 to 2006
0,00 - 0,10
0,10 - 0,14
0,14 - 0,25
0,25 - 0,30
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
21
Socioeconomic dynamics – Relation between social and economic dimensions
Fig. 28 – Relation between the evolution of IDE and IDS (1993-2006)
IDE Average
IDS Average
Source: Author Calculations
Positive growth in socioeconomic cohesion: NUTS III - Sør -Trøndelag,
Østfold and Hedmark;
Negative growth in socioeconomic cohesion: NUTS III - Nord-Trøndelag;
Negative growth in social cohesion: NUTS III - Akershus and Dalarnas län;
Negative growth in economic cohesion: NUTS III - Jämtlands län, Värmlands
län and Västra Götalands län.
22
Socioeconomic
dynamics
–
Relation between INTERREG-A
socioeconomic cohesion
and
Fig. 29: Socioeconomic dynamics in the border NUTS III - 1993-2006
Positive
Negative
Negative social cohesion
Negative economic
cohesion
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
Table 4: Relation between the financing (%), the projects (%) and the values of
the indexes by sub-region
Sub-region
SR6
SR7
SR8
Projects
INTERREG-A
(%)
36.41
29.09
34.51
Financing
INTERREG-A IDS_93_06 IDE_93_06 IDSE_93_06
(%)
31.51
0.15
0.16
0.15
27.38
0.04
0.20
0.12
41.11
0.11
0.18
0.14
SR6 - Nord-Trøndelag, Sør-Trøndelag e Jämtlands län;
SR7 - Hedmark, Akershus, Dalarnas län e Värmlands län;
SR8 - Østfold e Västra Götalands län;
Correlation (% Financing - IDSE 93_06) : -0,452 (negative average)
Correlation (% Financing - IDS 93_06) : 0,424 (positive average)
Correlation (% Financing - IDE 93_06) : -0,364 (negative average)
23
Urban system
Fig. 30: Typology of the Functional Urban Areas (FUAs) in Sandinavia Pen.
MEGA - Metropolitan European
Growth Areas
FUA - Functional Urban Area
Transnational
/ National FUAs
MEGAs
Country
SNBR
0
250 Km
Source: Data: ESPON 111 (2003) - Author Cartography
There aren’t any MEGAs in SNBR, but the city of Oslo is in close proximity
and influences deeply this region. Additionally, one can only find one FUA in
this territory: the city of Gothenburg (fig. 30). Both this cities are located in
the more dynamic SNBR axis, in both demographic and socio-economic
terms.
In the next maps we will try to give an image of the degree of the territorial
articulation in this border region, based on the elements that sustain the two
dimensions of the polycentrism concept (fig. 31).
Fig. 31: Polycentrism dimensions
Morphologic
Nº of cities
Hierarchy
Relational
Distribution
Fluxes
Connectivity
Networks
Source: Author
24
Cooperation
Complementarity
Urban system: Morphology – Number of cities – The urban agglomerations
Table 6: Main urban agglomerations in the Swedish Border
NUT III
Jämtlands län
Jämtlands län
Jämtlands län
Jämtlands län
Jämtlands län
Jämtlands län
Jämtlands län
Jämtlands län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Dalarnas län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
Värmlands län
City
Östersund
Krokom
Strömsund
Härjedalen
Are
Berg
Bräcke
Ragunda
Falun
Borlänge
Ludvika
Avesta
Mora
Leksand
Hedemora
Säter
Rättvik
Smedjebacken
Malung-Sälen
Gagnef
Älvdalen
Orsa
Vansbro
Karlstad
Arvika
Kristinehamn
Säffle
Hammarö
Sunne
Hagfors
Torsby
Kil
Forshaga
Filipstad
Årjäng
Grums
Eda
POP93
59310
14785
15660
12293
9994
8577
8593
6861
54793
47623
28607
24352
20892
15340
17035
11948
11399
13139
11441
10538
8292
7352
7764
77822
27035
25923
17750
14163
14013
15879
14981
12338
12338
13152
10121
10342
9344
POP07
58686
14304
12679
10699
10127
7586
7109
5747
55220
47756
25425
21886
20143
15338
15301
11000
10883
10715
10428
10111
7362
7091
6959
83641
26250
23906
15868
14547
13566
12993
12878
11748
11444
10782
9877
9302
8649
P07-P93 RK93
-624
-481
-2981
-1594
133
-991
-1484
-1114
427
133
-3182
-2466
-749
-2
-1734
-948
-516
-2424
-1013
-427
-930
-261
-805
5819
-785
-2017
-1882
384
-447
-2886
-2103
-590
-894
-2370
-244
-1040
-695
6
62
56
81
105
112
111
127
7
12
25
36
40
59
51
85
89
73
87
99
115
123
120
5
28
31
45
64
65
55
61
79
80
72
103
101
108
RK07
RK07-93
8
65
77
94
101
117
121
135
9
15
35
41
44
57
58
88
90
93
98
102
119
122
123
5
33
37
55
63
72
75
76
85
87
92
104
110
113
-2
-3
-21
-13
4
-5
-10
-8
-2
-3
-10
-5
-4
2
-7
-3
-1
-20
-11
-3
-4
1
-3
0
-5
-6
-10
1
-7
-20
-15
-6
-7
-20
-1
-9
-5
Nota: POP93: Population in 1993; POP07: Population in 2007; P03-P07: Population in 2007Population in 1993; RK93: City ranking in 1993 in relation with the border urban
agglomerations; RK07: City ranking in 2007; RK07-93: Ranking evolution 2007-1993.
Source: Data: SCB + SSB – Author calculations
25
Continuation of the previous table
NUT III
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
Västra Götalands
26
City
Göteborg
Borås
Mölndal
Trollhättan
Uddevalla
Skövde
Kungälv
Lidköping
Lerum
Vänersborg
Alingsås
Mark
Partille
Härryda
Falköping
Ale
Mariestad
Stenungsund
Ulricehamn
Skara
Vara
Orust
Tjörn
Lysekil
Götene
Tidaholm
Åmål
Öckerö
Tanum
Tranemo
Strömstad
Vårgårda
Tibro
Svenljunga
Munkedal
Bengtsfors
Mellerud
Töreboda
Herrljunga
Sotenäs
Hjo
Bollebygd
Karlsborg
Färgelanda
Grästorp
Essunga
Gullspång
POP93
POP07
437313
103367
53292
51729
48431
48757
35372
36417
34041
36463
34212
33500
31502
28242
31905
25204
24764
19583
22917
18736
16965
15025
14602
15401
13873
13296
13346
11440
12443
12552
10870
10574
11180
11316
11070
11636
10548
10511
9823
9852
9207
8038
7843
7529
6154
6100
6490
493502
100985
59430
54300
50921
50197
39649
37773
37711
36939
36739
33729
33699
32969
31311
27092
23871
23389
22542
18544
16008
15373
14944
14633
13056
12651
12589
12256
12246
11750
11558
10988
10611
10431
10256
9957
9553
9376
9304
9280
8809
8193
6850
6770
5831
5638
5425
P07-P93
RK93
RK07
RK07-93
56189
-2382
6138
2571
2490
1440
4277
1356
3670
476
2527
229
2197
4727
-594
1888
-893
3806
-375
-192
-957
348
342
-768
-817
-645
-757
816
-197
-802
688
414
-569
-885
-814
-1679
-995
-1135
-519
-572
-398
155
-993
-759
-323
-462
-1065
1
3
8
9
11
10
17
16
20
15
19
21
23
26
22
33
35
42
38
43
52
60
63
58
67
71
70
88
77
76
95
97
93
90
94
86
98
100
107
106
109
117
119
121
132
133
128
1
4
7
10
12
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
32
38
39
40
49
54
56
60
62
74
78
79
82
83
84
86
89
95
97
100
103
107
108
109
111
112
114
124
126
134
137
139
0
-1
1
-1
-1
-4
0
-2
1
-5
-2
-1
0
2
-5
1
-3
3
-2
-6
-2
4
3
-4
-7
-7
-9
6
-6
-8
9
8
-2
-7
-6
-17
-9
-8
-2
-5
-3
3
-5
-5
-2
-4
-11
Table 7: Main urban agglomerations in the Norwegian Border
NUT III
Nord-Trøndelag
Nord-Trøndelag
Nord-Trøndelag
Nord-Trøndelag
Nord-Trøndelag
Nord-Trøndelag
Nord-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Sør-Trøndelag
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
Hedmark
City
Steinkjer
Stjørdal
Levanger
Verdal
Namsos
Inderøy
Nærøy
Trondheim
Melhus
Malvik
Orkdal
Oppdal
Rissa
Skaun
Midtre Gauldal
Røros
Klæbu
Ørland
Ringsaker
Hamar
Elverum
Stange
Kongsvinger
Sør-Odal
Åsnes
Løten
Trysil
Eidskog
Tynset
Grue
Nord-Odal
POP93
POP07
20701
17402
17133
13713
12147
5801
5487
140656
12737
10055
10127
6207
6413
5636
5994
5355
4380
4918
31304
25999
17595
17586
17401
7365
8516
7059
7324
6455
5392
5648
5210
20624
20273
18173
13962
12573
5920
5073
161730
14304
12322
10812
6531
6366
6211
5889
5671
5474
5091
31974
27909
19260
18642
17236
7754
7604
7292
6782
6385
5371
5152
5055
P07-P93
RK93
RK07
RK07-93
-77
2871
1040
249
426
119
-414
21074
1567
2267
685
324
-47
575
-105
316
1094
173
670
1910
1665
1056
-165
389
-912
233
-542
-70
-21
-496
-155
41
48
50
68
82
136
139
2
75
104
102
131
130
138
135
141
144
143
24
30
46
47
49
122
114
126
124
129
140
137
142
42
43
51
67
80
132
144
2
66
81
91
128
130
131
133
136
138
143
25
29
47
48
52
115
116
120
125
129
140
142
145
-1
5
-1
1
2
4
-5
0
9
23
11
3
0
7
2
5
6
0
-1
1
-1
-1
-3
7
-2
6
-1
0
0
-5
-3
Nota: POP93: Population in 1993; POP07: Population in 2007; P03-P07: Population in 2007Population in 1993; RK93: City ranking in 1993 in relation with the border urban
agglomerations; RK07: City ranking in 2007; RK07-93: Ranking evolution 2007-1993.
27
Continuation of the previous table
NUT III
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Akershus
Østfold
Østfold
Østfold
Østfold
Østfold
Østfold
Østfold
Østfold
Østfold
City
Bærum
Asker
Skedsmo
Lørenskog
Ski
Ullensaker
Oppegård
Nittedal
Eidsvoll
Nes
Nesodden
Rælingen
Ås
Frogn
Sørum
Aurskog-Høland
Vestby
Nannestad
Fet
Enebakk
Gjerdrum
Fredrikstad
Sarpsborg
Moss
Halden
Askim
Rygge
Eidsberg
Rakkestad
Råde
POP93
POP07
92748
42826
34732
27114
23015
18363
21285
16350
16837
15626
13508
13917
12086
10673
11311
12423
11223
8001
8533
8085
3745
26539
46543
25013
25896
12837
12142
9197
7127
6051
106932
52210
44577
31365
27247
25966
23993
19968
19334
18219
16791
15062
14873
13890
13807
13587
13414
10536
9799
9660
5353
71297
50593
28633
27835
14329
13839
10357
7428
6654
P07-P93
RK93
RK07
RK07-93
14184
9384
9845
4251
4232
7603
2708
3618
2497
2593
3283
1145
2787
3217
2496
1164
2191
2535
1266
1575
1608
44758
4050
3620
1939
1492
1697
1160
301
603
4
14
18
27
37
44
39
54
53
57
69
66
84
96
91
78
92
118
113
116
145
29
13
38
32
74
83
110
125
134
3
11
16
26
31
34
36
45
46
50
53
59
61
68
70
71
73
96
105
106
141
6
13
28
30
64
69
99
118
127
1
3
2
1
6
10
3
9
7
7
16
7
23
28
21
7
19
22
8
10
4
23
0
10
2
10
14
11
7
7
The reading of tables 6 and 7 show us an urban system where small towns
prevail (84% with less than 30.000 inhab.), and where only 14 have more
than 50.000 inhabitants (8 in the INTERREG-A area).
In this scenario, we must highlight the presence of only two important border
cities in the northern part of the SNBR: Trondheim (S) and Östersund (S),
making the southern part as the sole beneficiary of dynamic city networks,
which enable regions to better explore their territorial potentials.
28
Urban system: Morphology – Hierarchy – SNBR cities
Fig. 32: Population in the largest SNBR cities
Ringsaker
Härryda
Partille
Mark
Alingsås
Vänersborg
1993
Lerum
2007
Lidköping
Kungälv
Skedsmo
Borlänge
Skövde
Sarpsborg
Uddevalla
Asker
Trollhättan
Falun
Östersund
Mölndal
Fredrikstad
Karlstad
Borås
Bærum
Trondheim
Göteborg
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Inhabitants
350000
400000
450000
500000
Source: Data: SCB + SSB - Author calculations
From 1993 to 2007 there were no significant variations in the main urban
agglomerations hierarchy in SNBR. Nevertheless, there is a visible strong
performance of the city of Gothenburg in this period, thus reinforcing its
dominant position in the whole area (fig. 32).
It is also possible to see that, with few exceptions, most of these urban
agglomerations increased their population during the last decade, in contrast
with the less urbanized territory.
29
Urban system: Morphology – Distribution - SNBR urban agglomerations
Fig. 33: SNBR Urban System - 2006
Inhabitants:
Trondheim
Östersund
< 10.000
10.000 – 20.000
20.000 – 50.000
50.000 100.000
Falun
> 100.000
Hamar
Karlstad
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
Fredrikstad/
Sarpsborg
0
130 Km
Fig. 34: SNBR urban agglomerations with more than 25.000 inhab. - 2006
Inhabitants:
> 75.000
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
0
130 Km
30
Urban system: Morphology – Distribution – Population Growth
Fig. 35: Population growth – Urban agglomerations in SNBR 1993-2007
Inhabirtants:
<0
0 - 1000
1000 - 5000
5000 - 10000
> 10.000
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
0
130 Km
Fig. 36: Urban agglomerations size in 2006 and population growth in SNBR
urban agglomerations 1993 - 2007
Inhabitants:
< 20.000
20.000 – 100.000
> 100.000
Population growth
< 500
500 – 10.000
> 10000
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
0
130 Km
31
Urban system: Morphology – Distribution
Fig. 37: Urban agglomerations morphology in SNBR – 2007
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
Inhabitants:
Trondheim
Östersund
< 20.000
20.000 - 50.000
50.000 - 100.000
Lillehammer
Mora
> 100.000
Gävle
Falum
Hamar
Bergen
Uppsala
Oslo
Västerås
Arvika
Karlstad
Stavanger
Sarpsborg
Örebro
Fredrikstatd
Estocolmo
Norrkköping
Inhabitants:
Vänersborg
Skövde
Uddevalla
Göteborg
0
60 km
Linköping
Böras
Jönköping
Possible polycentric interaction
Helsingborg
Lund
Malmö
Figures 33, 34, 35 and 36 show us an unbalanced distribution of the main
urban agglomerations over the SNBR territory. Yet, it is possible to identify
three areas with a significant urban concentration: (i) Oslo metropolitan area;
(iii) Gothenburg metropolitan area (iii) Trondheim metropolitan area. The
first two are well connected and form the only border articulated axis.
If we look at the SNBR urban system with the surrounding territory, we can
confirm that the previous identified axis is the one with a stronger polycentric
interaction, within the morphologic dimension (fig. 37).
32
Urban system: Morphology – Connectivity
Fig. 38: The degree of connectivity between the main border urban
agglomerations - 2007
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
Inhabitants:
Östersund
< 20.000
20.000 - 50.000
50.000 - 100.000
Lillehammer
Mora
Gävle
Falum
Hamar
Bergen
> 100.000
Uppsala
Oslo
Västerås
Arvika
Motorway
Karlstad
Stavanger
Sarpsborg
Örebro
Fredrikstatd
Norrkköping
Göteborg
0
60 km
Main road
Inhabitants:
Vänersborg
Skövde
Uddevalla
Estocolmo
Linköping
Böras
Jönköping
Helsingborg
Road distance < 1 hour
Lund
Source: Data: Michelin map S-N (2007) – Author calculations and cartography
If we presume that a higher degree of connectivity between the urban
agglomerations correlates with a higher polycentric potential, the fig. 38
show us, once again, that there is only one border axis with a strong
possibility to structure a polycentric urban network, in the SNBR, in the
morphologic dimension: Oslo - Gothenburg axis.
33
Urban system: Relation – Cooperation – Fluxes of urban cooperation
Fig. 39: The urban cooperation in SNBR – 2007
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
Inhabitants:
Trondheim
Östersund
< 20.000
20.000 - 50.000
50.000 - 100.000
Lillehammer
Bergen
Mora
> 100.000
Gävle
Falum
Hamar
Uppsala
Oslo
Västerås
Arvika
Urban cooperation
Karlstad
Sarpsborg
Stavanger
Örebro
Fredrikstatd
Estocolmo
Norrkköping
Vänersborg
Skövde
Uddevalla
Göteborg
Linköping
Böras
Jönköping
Mid Nordic Committee
ARKO
Østfold-Bohuslän/Dalsland
0
60 km
Helsingborg
Lund
Malmö
- ARKO Co-operation: 4 Swedish Counties: Arvika, Eda, Torsby and Sunne + 7
Norwegian counties: Eidskog, Sör-Odal, Nord-Odal, Kongsvinger, Grue, Åsnes
and Våler.
- Østfold-Bohuslän/Dalsland: 14 Swedish counties:
Strömstad, Tanum,
Sotenäs, Lysekil, Munkedal, Orust, Uddevalla, Trollhättan, Vänersborg,
Färgelanda, Mellerud, Åmål, Dals-Ed and Bengtsfors + 8 Norwegian counties:
Moss, Rygge, Råde, Sarpsborg, Fredrikstad, Hvaler, Halden and Aremark.
- Mid Nordic Committee: Norway: Nord-Tröndelag and Sör-Tröndelag +
Sweden: Västernorrland and Jämtland.
Source: Data: www.arko-regionen.org + http://www.mittnorden.net/ +
http://www.granskommitten.com - Author Cartography
34
Urban system: Relation – Cooperation – Cross-border cooperation fluxes
Fig. 40: CBC fluxes between CB urban agglomerations - INTERREG III-A
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
Inhabitants:
Trondheim
Östersund
< 20.000
20.000 - 50.000
50.000 - 100.000
Lillehammer
Mora
> 100.000
Gävle
Falum
Hamar
Bergen
Uppsala
Oslo
Västerås
Arvika
Karlstad
Sarpsborg
Stavanger
Örebro
Fredrikstatd
Norrkköping
Estocolmo
CB fluxes:
Vänersborg
Skövde
Uddevalla
Göteborg
0
60 km
Linköping
Böras
Jönköping
Helsingborg
Week
Strong
Urban CBC networks
Lund
Malmö
Source: Data: INTERREG III-A (S-N) projects - Author Cartography
The urban cooperation is stronger in the southern part of the SNBR, as a
result of the actions carried out by ARKO and Granskommitten associations,
which promote cross-border projects to develop the economy in their
intervention area (fig. 40).
The orientation of the CBC fluxes between the most important urban
agglomerations is also a consequence of the delimitation of the three subprograms of the INTERREG III-A, and they are particularly stronger in the
SR8 (BC).
35
Urban system: Relation – Complementarity - Economy
Fig. 41: The economic activity in SNBR - 2006
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
0
60 km
Industry
Agriculture
Minerals
Cattle
Fishing
Chemicals
Ornamental stones
Car assembly
Ship assembly
Environment
Aquaculture
Tourism
Heritage
Wood
Potatoes
Cereal
Wind energy
Solar energy
Hydro energy
Paper
36
Urban system: Relation – Complementarity – SWOT matrix
Fig. 42: SNBR’s SWOT Map - 2006
Country
0
60 km
Strong
Accessibilities
Heritage
Environment
Tourism
Demography
Agriculture
Industry
Services
Minerals
Cattle
Forests
Fishing - aquaculture
Ornamental stones
Week
Opportunities
Threats
Public transportations
Urban Agglomerations
Infrastructures
High education
Technology - innovation
Workers qualification
Water
Institutions
Employment
Wind energy
Solar energy
Water energy
37
Urban system: Relation – Complementarity – Economic activity sectors
Fig. 43: Workers (%) per main economic act. sector (NUTS III) - 1993
PRI
SEC
TER
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
Fig. 44: Workers (%) per main economic act. sector (NUTS III) - 2006
PRI
SEC
TER
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
38
Urban system: Relation – Complementarity – main functions
Fig. 45: Functional complementarity of the SNBR main cities
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
Inhabitants:
< 50000
50.000 - 250.000
Steinkjer
Strömsund
Trondheim
> 250.000
Åre
Östersund
Functions:
Molde
Røros
1 - Knowledge
2 - Transports
3 - Industry
4 - Tourism
5 - Environment - Heritage
6 - Institutions - Decision
Oppdal
Tynset
Härjedalen
Trysil
Lillehamer
Mora
Hamar
Malung-Sälen
Falun
Gävle
6
Kongsvinger
1
Ludvika
Oslo
5
2
Arvika
Karlstad
Uddevalla
0
4
Örebro
Fredrikstad +
Sarpsborg
3
Estocolmo
Trollhättan
Skövde
50 km
Borås
Jönköping
Linköping
Function intensity:
Strong
Gotemburgo
Medium
Week
Residual
CB Cities:
Malmö
CB Anchor cities
CB Networks with higher
morphologic polycentric
potential
Cities with CB influence
Potential complementarities
Scand. P. Anchor cities
39
Urban system: Relation – Road fluxes
Fig. 46: Average traffic intensity in SNBR - 2007
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
Inhabitants:
Trondheim
Östersund
< 20.000
20.000 - 50.000
50.000 - 100.000
Lillehammer
Bergen
Mora
> 100.000
Gävle
Falum
Hamar
Uppsala
Oslo
Västerås
Arvika
Karlstad
Stavanger
Sarpsborg
Örebro
Fredrikstatd
Norrkköping
Vänersborg
Skövde
Uddevalla
Göteborg
Escala
00 60
60km
km
Linköping
Böras
Jönköping
Estocolmo
CB Networks with higher morphologic
CB fluxes:
polycentric
potential
Week
Medium
Average daily intensity:
Strong
> 15.000
10.000 - 15.000
< 10.000
Helsingborg
Lund
Malmö
Source: Data: http://www.vegvesen.no + http://gis.vv.se - Author Cartography
Figures 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 try to show the degree of functional
complementarity that can be explored in some possible polycentric urban
networks, at a regional scale.
By looking at figure 46, we are able to identify a positive correlation between
a strong polycentric urban potential, in the morphologic dimension, and the
intensity of the average road traffic on the main roads of SNBR.
40
Urban system: Relation – Fluxes – CB public road transportations
Fig. 47: Daily frequency of public bus transportation CB connections - 2008
Country
Border
Legenda:
Sub-Regions
Países
Inhabitants:
Trondheim
Östersund
<Habitantes:
20.000
< 20.000
20.000 - 50.000
20.000
- 50.000
50.000
- 100.000
Lillehammer
>50.000
100.000- 100.000
Mora
Gävle
Falum
Hamar
Bergen
> 100.000
Uppsala
Oslo
Västerås
Arvika
Karlstad
Sarpsborg
Stavanger
Örebro
Fredrikstatd
Norrkköping
Estocolmo
CB fluxes:
polycentric
potential
Vänersborg
Skövde
Uddevalla
Göteborg
0
60 km
Linköping
Böras
Week
Medium
Nº de daily CB connections:
Jönköping
Strong
16
11
4 (winter)
Helsingborg
International
Lund
Malmö
Source: Data: CE (2006) + www.timeekspressen.no + www.swebusexpress.se
+ www.safflebussen.se - Author Cartography
Daily Connections:
Oslo - Sarpsborg - Halden - Strömstad;
Konsvinger - Charlottenberg;
Trysil - Mora (Winter);
International: Oslo - Gothenburg and Oslo - Stockholm.
One of the main problems detected in the CBC process within SNBR, was
the lack of enough road public transportation connections that cross the
border on a daily basis, in all the sub-regions (fig. 47), especially in the
center and the northern part of this region.
To solve this problem, some people have to use more expensive trips in the
international bus transportation that connect Oslo with the two biggest
Swedish cities (Stockholm and Oslo), and to the rest of Europe (via
Copenhagen), and eventually stop in some border cities (fig. 47).
41
Urban system: Relation – Railway fluxes
Fig. 48: Daily trains crossing the border in SNBR - 2007
Country
Border
Legenda:
Sub-Regions
Países
Inhabitants:
Trondheim
Östersund
<Habitantes:
20.000
< 20.000
20.000 - 50.000
20.000
- 50.000
50.000
- 100.000
Lillehammer
>50.000
100.000- 100.000
Mora
Gävle
Falum
Hamar
Bergen
> 100.000
Uppsala
Oslo
Västerås
Arvika
Karlstad
Sarpsborg
Stavanger
Örebro
Fredrikstatd
Norrkköping
Vänersborg
Skövde
Uddevalla
Göteborg
0
60 km
Linköping
Böras
Jönköping
Estocolmo
CB fluxes:
polycentric
potential
Week
Medium
Average daily intensity:
> 30 Strong
15 - 30
< 15
Helsingborg
Lund
Source: Data: http://www.sj.se/ + http://www.nsb.no/- Author Cartography
Railway transportation availability between the Swedish and Norwegian
border is also not the most desirable one, if we take on account the present
daily mobility needs in the SNBR (fig. 48).
In fact, along this region there are only three passenger train carriers which
provide a regular service in crossing the border, with few daily connections
and low speed locomotives.
It is also strange to see that there is a vast interior border territory without a
train connection. This could be solved with a Malung (S) - Elverum (N)
connection, which would attract even more tourists to this well preserved
and touristic area.
42
Urban system: Relation – Cross-border migratory fluxes
Fig. 49: Cross-border migrations in SNBR - 2007
Country
Border
Legenda:
Sub-Regions
Países
Inhabitants:
<Habitantes:
20.000
< 20.000
20.000 - 50.000
20.000
- 50.000
50.000
- 100.000
>50.000
100.000- 100.000
> 100.000
CB fluxes:
polycentric
potential
Week
Medium
Intensity of fluxes:
Strong Strong
Average
Week
0
60 km
Source: Data: SN_INT (2006) - Author Cartography
In previous years, the concern with the cross-border migrations data has
risen, due to the increase of this phenomenon in all the border area.
The available data show us that it is mostly the Swedish residents (mostly
men between 20 and 55 years old), that seek job opportunities in the other
side of the border, especially in the Oslo city surroundings (36%). There are
also some Norwegian residents dwelling in the border area seeking jobs on
the Swedish side of the border, especially in the city of Strömstad (in the
services economic sector) (fig. 49).
We couldn’t get data concerning Swedish living in Norway per NUTS III
instead we show a map with the foreign residents in Scandinavian NUTS III
(fig. 50). Yet, it’s not difficult to guess that most Swedes can be found in the
Oslo surrounding area and the border territory. Likewise, the Norwegian
residents in Sweden are located near the cities of Gothenburg, Stockholm
and Karlstad, together with some other location close to the border area (fig.
51).
43
Urban system: Relation – Migratory fluxes
Fig. 50: Foreigners living in Sweden and Norway - 1994 and 2007
1994
2007
85.000
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
NUTS III
Fig. 51: Norwegians living in Sweden - 1994 and 2007
1994
2007
5.200
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
Source: Data: SCB - Author Cartography
44
NUTS III
Urban system: Relation - Territorial articulation
Fig. 52: Territorial articulation in SNBR - 2006
Country
Border
Legenda:
Sub-Regions
Países
Inhabitants:
Trondheim
Östersund
<Habitantes:
20.000
< 20.000
20.000 - 50.000
20.000
- 50.000
50.000
- 100.000
Lillehammer
>50.000
100.000- 100.000
Mora
Gävle
Falum
Hamar
Bergen
> 100.000
Uppsala
Oslo
Västerås
Arvika
Karlstad
Sarpsborg
Stavanger
Örebro
Fredrikstatd
Estocolmo
Norrkköping
Vänersborg
Skövde
Uddevalla
Göteborg
0
60 km
Linköping
Böras
CB fluxes:
polycentric
potential
Week
Medium
Relational intensity:
Jönköping
Strong Strong
Average
Week
Helsingborg
Lund
Malmö
Figure 52 intends to summarize the degree of the territorial articulation of the
SNBR urban network, based on the two dimensions of the polycentrism
concept (morphologic and relational).
Looking at that picture is possible to identify a territorial network with a high
degree of articulation that connects the cities of Oslo (N) and Gothenburg
(S). Further north, one can also detect an important network of cities that
connect the city of Hamar (N) to the city of Karlstad (S). This latter network
is not so ‘intense’ as the previous one. Nevertheless, the degree of the
relational proximity strongly contributes to the regional integration of this
border area. The rest of the territory lacks important territorial articulations.
Yet, it’s possible to detect a connection between the cities of Steinkjer (N),
Trondheim (N) and Östersund (S), that look more like a dynamic axis, rather
then an true network of cities.
45
Cross-Border Cooperation - Barrier effect dimensions
Fig. 53: Dimensions and indicators of the barrier effect.
Dimensions
Institutional
Urban
Cultural
Social
Environmental
Heritage
Indicators
CBC Associations and cabinets
Urban CBC associations
Swedish and Norwegian language penetration
Cultural initiatives and CB equipments
CB Protected areas protocols
CB Heritage initiatives
Accessibility
CB Average road traffic
Road Crossing borders
Economy
Technology
CB Trade
CB Companies
The next maps aim to show the degree of the cross-border cooperation in
the three CB Swe-Nor sub-regions, in the barrier effect dimensions (fig. 53).
When it’s possible, we try to show the evolution of the respective indicator,
in the last 13 years (1993 - beginning of the INTERREG II-A and 2006 - end
of the third generation of the INTERREG-A).
At the end of the analysis of each one of this dimensions, we will show the
contribution of the two generations of INTERREG-A to that dimension, in
terms of approved projects and percentage of funding.
46
Cross-Border Cooperation - Institutional - CB associations and cabinets
Fig. 54: Cross-border associations and cabinets - 2006
1
5
10
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
If we assume that the degree of CBC in the institutional dimension can be
measured by the existing CB associations, then the data that we collected
(fig 54 and table 8) show us that the SR7 (IS) presents a stronger
institutional CBC dynamic, in this dimension, which is the result of the
ARKO association work, and also the UNISKA alliance.
The degree of cross-border urban cooperation can be viewed in fig. 39,
where we mapped the existing urban border associations. In that picture we
can see that it this kind of cooperation is especially relevant in the southern
part of the border area, where the ARKO and the Gränskommittén
associations connect many local border cities and aglometations.
47
Cross-Border Cooperation - Institutional - CB associations and cabinets
Table 8: Cross border associations and cabinets
SR6 - Nordic Green Belt
GIT - Östersund
GIT - Steinkjer
GIT - Trondheim
Mid-Nordic Commitee – 1978
Mid-Nordic Energy Group - 1981
Naboer AB - 1995
Regional partnership
SR7 - Inner Scandinavia
GIT - Karlstad
GIT - Falun
GIT - Hamar
ARKO Co-operation (1967)
The Border Service (grensetjansten) - Morokulen
The University alliance of Inner Scandinavia UNISKA
Institutional cooperation for R&D in Inner Scandinavia
Innovation music network
SR8 - Borderless Cooperation
GIT - Vänersborg
GIT - Sarpsborg
GIT - Oslo
Gränskommittén - (1980) Østfold-Bohuslän/Dalsland
Border Cheque - Enterprises
48
Cross-Border Cooperation - Institutional - Urban - INTERREG-A - Contribution
Fig. 55: The projects (%) of INTERREG-A in the Institutional - Urban dimension
by sub-regions
INTERREG II-A
INTERREG III-A
15
10
5
INT2
INT3
15
0
10
5
15
INT2
INT3
0
10
5
INT2
Country
INT3
0
0
250 Km
Fig. 56: The investment (%) of INTERREG-A in the Institutional - Urban
dimension by sub-regions
INTERREG II-A
INTERREG III-A
15
10
5
INT2
INT3
15
0
10
5
INT3
INT2
15
0
10
5
INT2
Country
INT3
0
0
250 Km
49
Cross-Border Cooperation - Social-Cultural - Culture and CB equipments
Fig. 57: Cross-border cultural initiatives - INTERREG-A II - III
40
80
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
Source: Data: INTERREG-A Database - Author Cartography
Fig. 58: Cross-border social equipments - 2006
Off
Mitt-Skandinaviskt
Regionprojekt GIM
In project
Elverum
Country
Aremark / Halden (N) / Dals Ed (S)
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
Source: Data: Interviews + (T. Lundén, 2004) + www.forumfrostviken.se Author Cartography
50
Cross-Border Cooperation - Social-Cultural - INTERREG-A - Contribution
Fig. 59: The projects (%) of INTERREG-A in the Social-Cultural dimension by
sub-regions
INTERREG II-A
INTERREG III-A
20
INT 2
INT 3
15
10
5
20
0
INT 3
15
10
INT 2
5
20
0
INT 3
15
10
INT 2
5
0
0
Country
250 Km
Fig. 60: The investment (%) of INTERREG-A in the Social-Cultural dimension
by sub-regions
INTERREG II-A
INTERREG III-A
20
15
INT 2
INT 3
10
5
20
0
15
INT 3
10
INT 2
5
20
0
INT 3
15
10
INT 2
5
0
0
250 Km
Country
51
Cross-Border Cooperation - Environmental-heritage - protected areas
Fig. 61: SNBR main protected areas - 2006
1
Country
2
Border
3
Legenda:
Sub-Regions
Países
4
5
7
9
6
10
10
8
11
Before 1990
13
12
After 1990
13
14
0
Other protected areas
Cross-Border
60 km
Source: Data: Nordregio + http://www.dirnat.no/nasjonalparker/ +
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/ - Author Cartography
1 - Børgefjell (N) - 1963; 2 - Lierne (N) - 2004; 3 - Blåfjella-Skjækerfjella (N) 13
2004; 4 - Skarvan og Roltdalen (N)
- 2004; 5 - Forollhogna (N) - 2001; 6 -
Femundsmarka (N) - 1971 + Gutulia (N) - 1968; 7 - Dovrefjell-Sunndalsfjella (N)
- 2002; 8 - Rondane (N) - 1962; 9 - Sånfjället (S) - 1989; 10 - Töfsingdalen (S) 1930; 11 - Fulufjället (S) - 2002; 12 - Tresticklan (S) - 1996; 13 - Djurö (S) 1991; 14 - Tiveden (S) - 1983
52
Cross-Border Cooperation - Environmental-heritage - world heritage
Fig. 62: World heritage places in SNBR - 2006
Country
Border
Legenda:
Sub-Regions
Países
Mining Town Røros
Copper Mining Falun
Before 1990
After 1990
CB Cities
0
60 km
Rock Carvings Tanum
Source: Data: http://whc.unesco.org - Author Cartography
Figures 57 and 58 show us that there are a vast number of culture crossborder initiatives all over the border area, but that there is still a lot to be
done in sharing of social equipments (hospitals, schools, pavilions, etc).
SNBR has also a great potential in the economic exploration of its vast and
well preserved natural protected areas (fig. 61). Nevertheless, there is no
formal national agreement for to implement a shared management of these
protected areas.
Besides the environmental potential, the SNBR has also some heritage
attractions in some of important border cities (Trondheim, Karlstad, Hamar,
Östersund, Halden, and some others), and also in three places that are
recognized as world heritage (fig. 62). Those places, promote the regional
and local tourism, which is already, at the present time, one of the main
sources of income of the entire border region.
53
Cross-Border Cooperation - Environmental-heritage - heritage initiatives
Fig. 63: Cross-border heritage and environmental initiatives - INTERREG-A
10
20
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
Source: Data: INTERREG-A Database - Author Cartography
The collection of information that concerns the CB heritage collaboration
initiatives was only available in the INTERREG-A projects. The
spatialization of this data (fig. 63) reveals a higher concern for this kind of
cooperation in the southern sub-regions.
Figure 64 show us that the Swedish tourists entry in Norway decreased
slightly in the last 13 years, in the border area, except in the SR8 (BC), but
they continue to prefer to stay in the center and northern parts of this
country (winter sports facilities).
On the other hand, figure 65 shows us that the number of Norwegian
tourists that visited the Swedish side of the border, in the last years, is
increasing considerably, especially in the southern part of the border, where
the availability of commercial facilities is higher.
54
Cross-Border Cooperation - Environmental-heritage - tourists
Fig. 64: Swedish tourists that slept in Norwegian hotels - 1993-2006
Country
Border
Legenda:
Sub-Regions
Países
36.000
1993
2006
0
90 km
Source: Data: SSB - Author Cartography
Fig. 65: Norwegian tourists that slept in Swedish hotels – 1993-2006
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
160.000
1993
2006
0
90 km
55
Cross-Border Cooperation - Environmental-Heritage-INTERREG-A-Contribution
Fig. 66: The projects (%) of INTERREG-A in the Environmental - Heritage dimension by sub-regions
INTERREG II-A
INTERREG III-A
15
10
5
INT 2
INT 3
15
0
10
INT 2
5
15
INT 3
0
10
5
INT 2
INT 3
0
0
Country
250 Km
Fig. 67: The investment (%) of INTERREG-A in the Environmental - Heritage
INTERREG II-A
INTERREG III-A
15
10
5
INT 2
INT 3
15
0
10
INT 2
5
INT 3
15
0
INT 2
10
5
0
INT 3
0
250 Km
56
Country
Cross-Border Cooperation - Accessibility - Average daily road traffic
Fig. 68 Annual average daily traffic in border crossings - 2002
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
1.000
5.000
10.000
Roads
Border
0
90 km
Source: Data: (Berger et al, 2004) - Author Cartography
Fig. 69: Annual average daily traffic evolution in the main border passages
- 1995-2007
Teveldal N.Trøndelag - E14
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
Morukullien Hedmark - RV2
9.200
Ørje-Østfold
- E18
1995
Svinesund - Østfold E6
0
2007
90 km
Source: Data: (Berger et al, 2004) + http://www.vegvesen.no/ - Author
Cartography
57
Cross-Border Cooperation - Accessibility - Road network
Fig. 70: Motorway and international connection roads in RFSN - 2006
Country
Border
Legenda:
Sub-Regions
Países
Motorways in SNBR
International or
national roads in
SNBR
Scandinavia Peninsula
main roads
0
60 km
CB Cities + Main
Scandinavia Península cities
Source: Data: Michelin Map (Scandinavia - 2008) - Author Cartography
There are four border road passages where the annual average daily traffic
intensity is stronger: (i) Svinesund – Østfold; (ii) Morukullien - Hedmark; (iii)
Ørje - Østfold; (iv) Teveldal - N.Trøndelag (fig. 68).
The annual average daily traffic increased significantly in the last decade, in
almost all the border passages, but it was more vigorous in the most
important road passages, located in the most dynamic axis of the SNBR
(Oslo – Gothenburg) (fig. 69).
Along the border, there isn’t any motorway border crossing (fig. 70), but
there are 24 roads crossing the studied border, yet only 6 of them are
appointed in the maps as major roads.
58
Cross-Border Cooperation - Accessibility - Railway network
Fig. 71: Railroad network in RFSN - 2006
Country
Border
Legenda:
Sub-Regions
Países
Active rail
connections in SNBR
Main rail network in
Scandinavia Peninsula
0
60 km
CB Cities + Main
Scandinavia Península cities
Source: Data: (http://www.sj.se) - Author Cartography
There are three cross-border railway network connections in the SNBR. One
of them (Trondheim – Östersund) was reactivated in recent times, with
INTERREG-A funding (fig. 71).
We should also point out that there isn’t any high speed railway connection
in SNBR, and that the number of daily connections is still reduced. Then
again, the speed of trains that cross the border is considered low, especially
in the Trondheim – Östersund connection. Another problem is the ticket
prices, which is considered a bit expensive, if this kind of public
transportation intents to attract more passengers.
59
Cross-Border Cooperation - Accessibility - Airport network
Fig. 72: Airport network in RFSN - 2006
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
Países
International
connection HUB
European connection
HUB
Regional HUB
0
60 km
CB Cities + Main Ibéria
Península cities
Source: Data: ESPON, 1.2.1 (2004) - Author Cartography
There are several small airport facilities along the SNBR, but there is only
one international airport connection in this area, according to ESPON
criteria: Gardermoen (the new Oslo Airport), which is an important
development factor for the surrounding region (fig. 72).
According to the same criteria, there are also two European Airport
connections in SNBR: (i) the Trondheim Airport that serves the SR6 (NGB),
including parts of the Swedish border area; (ii) the Gothenburg Airport, used
by some Norwegians that want to take ‘low cost’ flights.
Trade fluxes (fig. 75 – 76) show us a continuous increase in the last decade
in all the border sub-regions, and the penetration of the Swedish and
Norwegian companies in the neighbor country (fig. 77 – 78), shows a
preference for the most urbanized and populated areas.
60
Cross-Border Cooperation - Accessibility - INTERREG-A - Contribution
Fig. 73: The projects (%) of INTERREG-A in the accessibility dimension by
sub-regions
INTERREG II-A
INTERREG III-A
15
10
5
INT 2
INT 3
15
0
10
5
INT 2
15
INT 3
0
10
5
INT 3
INT 2
0
0
Country
250 Km
Fig. 74: The investment (%) of INTERREG-A in the accessibility dimension by
sub-regions
INTERREG II-A
INTERREG III-A
15
INT 3
10
5
INT 2
15
0
10
5
INT 2
15
INT 3
0
10
5
INT 3
INT 2
0
0
250 Km
Country
61
Cross-Border Cooperation - Economy - Technology - Trade
Fig. 75: Exports (million €) - Norwegian border NUTS III with Sweden - 1997
and 2006
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
170
1997
2006
0
90 km
Source: Data: (SSB) - Author Cartography
Fig. 76: Imports (million €) - Norwegian border NUTS III with Sweden - 1997
and 2006
Country
Border
Sub-Regions
1200
1997
2006
0
90 km
Source: Data: (SSB) - Author Cartography
62
Cross-Border Cooperation - Economy - Technology - Companies
Fig. 77: Norwegian companies in Sweden - 1993 and 2007
1993
2007
450
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
NUTS III
Fig. 78: Swedish companies in Norway - 2007
2007
250
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
NUTS III
Source: Data: http://www.swedishtrade.se - Author Cartography
63
Cross-Border Cooperation - Economy-Technology - INTERREG-A- Contribution
Fig. 79: The projects (%) of INTERREG-A in the Economy - Technology
INTERREG II-A
INTERREG III-A
25
INT 2
20
15
INT 3
10
5
25
0
20
15
INT 3
INT 2
10
5
25
0
20
15
INT 2
INT 3
10
5
0
0
Country
250 Km
Fig. 80: The investment (%) of INTERREG-A in the Economy - Technology
INTERREG II-A
INTERREG III-A
25
20
INT 2
15
10
INT 3
5
25
0
20
15
INT 2
INT 3
10
5
25
0
INT 2
20
INT 3
15
10
5
0
0
250 Km
64
Country
Cross-Border Cooperation – Cross-Border Cooperation Models
Fig. 81: Cross-Border Cooperation Model
CBC Models
Main Characteristics
Week
Continued
Several
Strong
Type of border
Old
Strong
Local
Type of Actors
Territorial Articulation
CBC in time
CBC Intensity
Type of partnership
SURGING
CBC Strategy
STRUCTURAL
EUROREGION
Barrier Effect
GENUINE
PSEUDO CBC
STRUCTURAL
SURGING
WEEK
Strong
Occasional
Bilateral
Week
Recent
Week
Regional
Source: Author
In the CBC genuine model the barrier effect in all of its dimensions is very
week. There is a common territorial development strategy, managed by a
cabinet with administrative and juridical competences. The CB fluxes are
strong and there are several social infra-structures used by both sides of
the border.
In the Structural CBC model there is quite acceptable border permeability
in almost all dimensions of the barrier effect, but the juridical and
administrative differences are still relevant. There is some degree of
territorial articulation but the CB fluxes aren’t always what they could be.
There is not a common territorial intervention strategy.
In the Surging CBC model there is a complete absence of a cross border
culture, and there are still strong barriers to overcome. The territorial
articulation is not yet solidified, and the CBC process is still very dependent
on the European Community funding.
In the Pseudo CBC model the barrier effect remains very strong in all of its
dimensions. The process of CBC is also quite residual, recent and with a
small amount of solidarity.
65
Cross-Border Cooperation - Cross Border Cooperation Models – SR6 and SR7
Fig. 82: CBC models parameters – SR6 (Nordic Green Belt)
CBC Strategy
Occasional
Continued
Type of partnership
Bilateral
Several
CBC Intensity
Week
Strong
CBC in time
Recent
Old
Week
Strong
Type of actors
Regional
Local
Sub-region positioning in the CBC models parameters
Fig. 83: CBC models parameters – SR7 (Inner Scandinavia)
CBC Strategy
Occasional
Continued
Type of partnership
Bilateral
Several
CBC Intensity
Week
Strong
CBC in time
Recent
Old
Week
Strong
Type of actors
Regional
Local
66
Cross-Border Cooperation – Cross-Border Cooperation Models – SR7 + SNBR
Fig. 84: CBC models parameters – SR8 (Borderless Co-operation)
CBC Strategy
Occasional
Continued
Type of partnership
Bilateral
Several
CBC Intensity
Week
Strong
CBC in time
Recent
Old
Week
Strong
Type of actors
Regional
Local
Fig. 85: CBC models parameters – (SNBR - average)
CBC Strategy
Occasional
Continued
Type of partnership
Bilateral
Several
CBC Intensity
Week
Strong
CBC in time
Recent
Old
Week
Strong
Type of actors
Regional
Local
67
Cross-Border Cooperation - Cross Border Cooperation Models
Fig. 86: More intense CBC Axes in SNBR - 2006
Surging CBC
Structural CBC
Country
Border
NUTS III
0
250 Km
In 2006 none of the studied CB sub-regions fit in the Genuine CBC model.
Yet, in our point of view, all the area covered by the ARKO and the
Gränskomittén associations show strong bounds in many dimensions,
making it a good candidate to future Euroregion. To reach this goal, it is
however necessary to attenuate some persistent barriers: (i) juridical –
administrative differences (regulations, taxes, customs, etc); (ii) the
insignificant share of social equipments in both sides of the border; (iii) the
absence of a clear cross-border strategy in the joint management of
protected landscapes located along the border;
In the rest of the studied territory, (the northern part), the absence of an
articulated urban structure, associated with low population densities, is a
major obstacle to the process of CBC. Nevertheless this situation does not
prevent that dynamic entities, located primarily in major urban centers,
engage valid CBC projects, in order to establish better connections on both
sides of the border, and exploring their natural resources, in areas such as
tourism, traditions and culture. However, if the degree of relational proximity
has increased substantially in the last decade, with regard to physical
proximity, the improvement resulting from the reactivation of the link
Trondheim - Östersund by train is far from adequate for the needs of border
crossing. Therefore it’s also important to invest in new road crossings, in
order to capitalize the presence of the international airport of Trondheim,
which is used by residents living in the Swedish side of the border.
68
Contacted persons and entities
Entities
Södertörns Högskola
Nordregio
Engerdal kommune
Interreg III-A (S-N) - North Green Belt
Interreg III-A (S-N) - Inner Scandinavia
Interreg III-A (S-N) - Inner Scandinavia 2
Interreg III-A (S-N) - Bordeless Co-operation
Interreg III-A (S-N) - Hedmark
Statistics – Norway
Statistics – Sweden
Invest in Sweden Agency
Trysil Skolle
Innovation Norway
Swedish Trade Council
SIKA – Swedish institute for transport
Østlandsforskning
The Institute of Transport Economics
Karlstad University
Högskolan i Hedmark
Ostfold commune
Swedish Road Administration
Bolagsverket
Are Kommun
NABOER AB
Halden Kommune
Strömstad Kommun
Malung - Sälen Kommun
Meråker Kommune
Strömstad Kommun
Norwegian Directorate Nature Management
Persons
Prof. Dr. Thomas Lundén
Dr. Jon Moxnes Steineke + Dr. Daniel Rauhut
Mayor Dag Ronning
Dra. Anita Sandell + Dr. Michael Von Essen
Dr. Erik Hagen + Dr. Bjorn Terne Andersen
Dr. Magnus Dagerhorn
Dr. Bo Hamra
Dr. Kjell Vaagen
Dr. Randi Dyrstad
Dr. Magnus Nystrom
Dr. Magnus Runnbeck
Dra. Graça Ronning
Dra. Tina Nordlander
Dra. Berit Thorstensson
Dr. Fredrik Söderbaum + Andreas Holmström
Dr. Morten Ørbeck
Dr. Arne Rideng
Prof. Dr. Sune Berger
Dr. Peter de Souza + Dra. Lisbeth Berglund
Dra. Christina Christiansson
Dra. Anna Hultqvist
Dra. Anna Birberg
Dr. Magnus Dahlin
Dr. Lennart Adsten
Dr. Egil Schjeruerud
Dr. Ronnie Brorsson
Dr. Tor Olsen + Olsa Ensback
Dra. Anne Marken
Dr. Ronnie Brorsson
Dra. Inger Karin Lien + Dr. Randi Boe
69
Cross-border itineraries
Fig. 87: Cross-border itineraries in SNBR 2008
Trondheim
Östersund
Valladolid
Trysil
Madrid
Hamar
Malung
Falun
Kongsvinger
Oslo
Fredrikstad
Karlstad
Sarpsborg
Udevalla
Escala
0
50 km
Country
Gotemburgo
Borås
Sub-regions
Inhabitants.:
Cross border
itineraries:
SR6 - Nordic Green Belt
SR7 - Inner Scandinavia
SR8 - Borderless Cooperation
70
Cross-border itineraries – SR6 – Nordic Green Belt
Landscape - Trondelag (N)
Trondheim (N)
Meråker (N)
Border - Storlien- (S)
Landscape - Jämtlands (S)
Åre (S)
GIT INTERREG - Jämtlands (S)
Östersund (S)
71
Cross-border itineraries – SR7 – Inner Scandinavia
72
Hamar (N)
Trysil (N)
Landscape - Hedmark
Border - Rundfloen (N) e Långflon (S)
Border - Vesibu (N) e Flötningen (S)
Border - Morokulen (S-N)
Landscape - Dalarna (S)
Dam (S)
Cross-border itineraries – SR8 – Borderless Co-operation
Landscape - Västra Götlands (S)
Border - 24 km (S)
Border - (S)
Border - Svinesund (S-N)
Border – Old bridge in front
Østfold road improvements - (N)
Landscape - Østfold (N)
Halden (N)
73
References
Berger, Sune; Ørbeck, Morten; Forsberg, Gunnel (2004) - Atlas over Inre
Skandinavien, Befolkningsutveckling, näringsliv och livsmiljö, Ett
samarbetsprojekt mellan, Karlstads universitet och Østlandsforskning,
Karlstad.
CE (2006) – Full Score - Briefly about Interreg IIIA Sverige-Norge projects,
INTERREG III-A Sweden-Norway, Östersund.
ESPON 1.1.1 (2003) - The Polycentrism in Europe, Final Report, ESPON,
Luxemburg.
ESPON 1.2.1 (2004) - Transport services and networks policies: Territorial
trends and basic supply of infrastructure for territorial cohesion,
ESPON, Luxemburg.
Lundén, Thomas (2004) – On the boundary, About humans at the end of
territory, Södertörns Högskola, Huddinge.
Nordregio (2002) – Profiles of Nordic Interreg III A and B programmes
Nordregio, Stockholm, pp. 75-90.
Nordregio (2007) – Regional Development in the Nordic Countries, Nordregio
Report 2007:1, Stockholm.
SN_INT (2006) – GrenseTjänsten, Et Prisvinnande Koncept, Interreg III A,
Powerpoint Presentation, Morukulien.
Internet Sites:
http://www.ssb.no
http://www.scb.se
http://www.arko-regionen.org
http://www.mittnorden.net
http://www.granskommitten.com
http://www.vegvesen.no
http://www.timeekspressen.no
http://www.sj.se
http://www.nsb.no
http://www.forumfrostviken.se
http://www.dirnat.no/nasjonalparker
http://www.naturvardsverket.se
http://www.safflebussen.se
http://www.swebusexpress.se
http://whc.unesco.org
http://www.vegvesen.no
http://www.swedishtrade.se
74

The Cross-Border Cooperation in Sweden - Norway

Transcription

Similar documents

PrimeFilm 1800 AFL Low-Cost 35mm Slide/Film Scanning Through

Статья

KFYI - "The Valley`s Talk Station"

2007-2008 Ducati Monster S4R/S

R - imeko

2001-2005 Ducati Monster S4/R

Bill of Material Hoelscher Model 1000 Push Over Arm Retro Fit Kit

2007 Suzuki GSXR1000 Dynojet Research 2191 Mendenhall Drive

this product is designed for use in closed course racing

Intelligence in Living Cells