Over recent decades, socio-spatial disparities between population groups in many Nordic cities have become more pronounced, manifesting as greater socio-economic and ethnic segregation. This has prompted growing concerns about the societal implications arising from urban segregation and exclusion. The urban policy agendas drawn up in response to such concerns contain a wide range of pertinent policy measures and planning interventions. Against the above backdrop, this study has examined how Nordic governments and cities are both seeking to reduce urban segregation and foster greater social inclusion.
The driving purpose of the report has been to provide a comparative Nordic outlook on relevant policy-making and planning at different territorial levels. Governments in the Nordic region have introduced various national policies and strategies aimed at preventing segregation and increasing social inclusion in cities, while responsibility for policy implementation and planning interventions often rests at the city or neighbourhood level. A particular focus of the study has been to unpack how policy-making and planning roles are allocated across different levels of governance, especially in terms of interactions between the central state and municipalities, and how public sector organisations and other actors work together to tackle urban segregation and foster social inclusion.
In addressing these aims, the report has examined all five Nordic countries and focused in on 13 different Nordic cities. Throughout, four main themes have shaped the analysis, expressed through four overarching research questions, each of which has been addressed in a dedicated chapter (see Table 1 in section 1.1). Below, the research findings arising from these four questions are discussed in turn, followed by some brief final reflections.
7.1 Policies for counteracting segregation and promoting socially mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods
The first of the study’s core themes, addressed in Chapter 3, concerned national policies designed to counteract urban segregation and promote social inclusion. Here, the aim was to set out the relevant national policy landscape in all five Nordic countries and illustrate the kinds of initiatives and tools governments have employed in this regard. The following section sums up the main policy approaches taken in each country, followed by analysis of the similarities and differences apparent in a cross-Nordic comparison.
7.1.1 Nordic national policies targeting and promoting social inclusion in cities
What does the national policy landscape concerning strategies preventing segregation and promoting social inclusion in Nordic cities look like?
A common feature of the policies pursued in the five Nordic countries is that they are being formulated amid a context of growing concerns about societal segregation and inequality. Overall, the findings show that Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden all share a commitment to fostering cohesive communities and reducing disparities. Nevertheless, the approach taken by each country to achieving these objectives often involve divergent methods and policy frameworks.
Here, the Swedish Government’s 2018 long-term strategy to reduce and counteract segregation stands out due its wide-ranging focus – encompassing factors such as education, the labour market, democracy and civil society, and crime – and holistic view of residential segregation as a complex phenomenon. The strategy framed urban segregation as a relational phenomenon that can only be fully understood in a wider city- or region-wide context, with development in one neighbourhood inevitably impacting that of other residential areas. Building on this, the strategy’s primary focus was on addressing the aspects of segregation that most negatively impeded people's rights, preconditions and possibilities.
The Nordic national policies examined by the study are premised on various closely related concepts, with many focusing – whether explicit or implicit – on broader notions of social sustainability. For instance, Finland’s national policies refer to social sustainability in relation to ensuring equality between people. Here, participation and trust among individuals and other actors are emphasised as preconditions for achieving this. Overall, promoting wellbeing and reducing inequalities are clear priorities, while supporting key services is underlined as something that can reinforce social sustainability, everyday safety and community spirit.
Finnish national policies also highlight the role of urban planning in strengthening inclusion and countering social inequality. Coupled with other targeted actions and measures, thoughtful urban planning can create pleasant, functional, green living environments that contribute to neighbourhood vitality. Another prominent policy area at the national level is housing, especially when it comes to ensuring urban areas feature a mix of housing tenure forms and infill development, thereby helping prevent segregation.
Norway’s national policies have a strong focus on addressing social challenges that are spatially concentrated in certain residential areas. Such policies apply the concept of social sustainability to a variety of issue areas, such as ensuring more equal education and employment opportunities; promoting good living conditions; and creating more integrated local communities.
Norwegian policies and strategies also address the importance of immigration and integration for local development, in parallel with holistic urban planning processes. In the latter respect, considerable emphasis is placed on ensuring a city’s physical design contributes to strengthening social inclusion, with parks, open spaces and other publicly accessible meeting places (e.g. libraries, cultural centres, sports facilities) enjoying particular prominence.
Iceland differs from the other Nordic countries in that issues of segregation and social inclusion have only relatively recently appeared on the policy agenda. The country thus has comparatively few national policies addressing these issues, although some relevant initiatives concerning integration, education and housing have been launched in the past few years. In terms of preventing segregation, however, it is the City of Reykjavík that has been responsible for Iceland’s most notable policies and plans. Creating more socially inclusive, mixed neighbourhoods is a clear priority of the city's masterplan and housing policy. This objective is also supported by the Borgarlína public transport project, while the integration of immigrants is the main focus of Reykjavík’s immigration policy.
The Danish context for segregation-related policies differs significantly from the other Nordic countries. In recent years, the main national policy in this area has been the 2018 ‘Ghetto Strategy’, which seeks to eradicate ‘parallel societies’ through a broad range of policy and planning measures, addressing such issues as housing, integration, education, welfare, crime and punishment, and the transformation of physical living environments in targeted areas. The strategy has proven controversial, largely because it involves the strategic demolition of housing and is designed to change the residential composition of targeted areas, which some regard as planned gentrification.
Another aspect that sets the Ghetto Strategy apart from most other Nordic policies is its emphasis on non-Western immigrants, whom the government wants to prevent from residing in the targeted areas. It is also noteworthy that the Danish strategy barely addresses the issue of employment, whereas many of the other Nordic national policies point to work and employment as key elements in creating less segregated cities.
Generally speaking, the Nordic policies, strategies and plans examined by the study aim to create less segregated cities and more socially mixed neighbourhoods. This objective is premised on the notion of diversity, which according to Fainstein (2014) can refer either to variety in the urban landscape (housing, public spaces and multifunctionality) or to social mix in terms of class, ethnicity and gender. Here, several of the study’s case studies demonstrate a particular focus on using urban planning interventions or tenure mixing policies to achieve greater variation in the built environment and housing stock of neighbourhoods, leading in turn to greater diversity among the area’s population.
It is also noteworthy that many of the national policies examined encompass a number of policy areas related to broader notions of social sustainability. For instance, creating less segregated, more socially inclusive cities and neighbourhoods is an explicit aim of several policies, to be achieved through – among other means – fostering equality between people; promoting participation and trust; and ensuring inclusive services and vibrant community spaces. Numerous policies also stress inclusive spatial planning and improved public services as vital tools for enhancing overall quality of life. Overall, this resonates with the notion of ‘just sustainability’, defined by Agyeman et al. (2003) as an individual’s or a community’s ability to enjoy a good quality of life in a just, equitable manner.
Despite a strong focus on integration and immigration policies across the Nordic countries, clear differences can be observed in this regard. For example, while Denmark is planning for fewer immigrants going forward and so is placing greater demands on incomers, Sweden and Norway are actively looking to settle newly arrived refugees away from immigrant-dense areas in order to facilitate successful integration.
Education emerges as a central pillar in the quest for social equity and integration in all the Nordic countries. Finland, for instance, prioritises inclusive educational opportunities for all, irrespective of background. Elsewhere, Sweden and Norway similarly emphasise the role of schools in promoting equality and inclusion, with a focus on addressing the needs of diverse student populations.
Although urban planning plays a pivotal role in creating inclusive communities across the Nordic region, widely divergent approaches have emerged between countries. In Sweden, initiatives focus on reducing residential segregation and ensuring good-quality housing and accessible social services for all, while Denmark’s controversial Ghetto Strategy (cf. Alves, 2022) seeks to combat segregation through urban regeneration and the strategic demolition of public housing. In Iceland, the overriding priority is on ensuring accessibility through improved public transport and sustainable land use planning.
Many of the interventions designed to counteract urban segregation have taken the form of area-based regeneration projects targeting particular residential areas, often with state funding. Denmark’s above previously mentioned Ghetto Strategy is directed at areas designated as disadvantaged based on various demographic criteria (e.g. socio-economic composition, criminal histories of residents); several national programmes in Finland have targeted post-war suburban housing estates; and state-led initiatives in Norway have sought to enhance the vitality of areas facing a concentration of welfare challenges.
Although the Danish approach to area-based interventions differs noticeably from the other examples, all five countries are seeking to address interconnected physical environment and housing stock problems while considering the social environments and residential compositions of the areas in question. Thus, the programmes can be viewed as aiming for both place- and people-based results.
7.1.2 Characteristic features, similarities and differences of Nordic policy approaches
How can the policies and strategies examined be characterised in terms of design, implementation, aims and objectives, and what similarities and differences are discernible between countries?
When it comes to implementing effective strategies addressing social inclusion and segregation, all the Nordic countries regard cross-sectoral collaboration between government agencies, local authorities, civil society organisations and residents as key. Even so, each Nordic country has a distinctive policy approach. For example, whereas Sweden and Norway seek to strengthen individuals facing structural obstacles, Denmark imposes benefit reductions on those living in ‘hard ghettos’, alongside targeted crime prevention measures.
Moreover, while Sweden, Norway and Finland have adopted broad, structural approaches to segregation, Denmark’s strategy focuses on immigration from non-Western countries as the primary driver of segregation. Sweden's strategy encompasses various life aspects (e.g. housing, education, labour market) in seeking to address socio-economic inequality over time. Similarly, Norway’s focus is on work and education initiatives, coupled with housing subsidies, while the Finnish approach to combating segregation is also actively holistic.
National policies are subject to political shifts within a given country. For example, while the Finnish government’s 2019 programme had a clear emphasis on preventing segregation, increasing neighbourhood vitality through areas-based interventions, and promoting resident wellbeing and participation opportunities, the more recent 2023 government programme has much less focus on these issues.
A reorientation of national policy has also been seen in Sweden since the 2022 change in government. Although counteracting social exclusion remains a clear policy objective, the focus and prioritisation of the strategies employed appears to have shifted. While previous strategies had an explicit focus on counteracting socio-economic segregation, current policies are more oriented towards addressing social exclusion, with greater emphasis on individual responsibility. Also observable over recent years in both Finland and Sweden is a greater focus on dealing with gang crime as part of policies dealing with urban segregation and social inclusion.
All in all, it is important to acknowledge that the policy landscape in each of the Nordic countries is constantly evolving, and while more recent policies often build on previous ones, priorities can nevertheless shift in different directions over time.
7.2 Indicators for assessing urban segregation and social inclusion
The second of the study’s four main themes, explored in Chapter 4, concerned the role of indicators in supporting interventions towards more socially inclusive cities in the five Nordic countries. In each case, the chapter set out which national-level indicators are being used or are in development, and how the respective national policies treat the role of data, indicators and research-based knowledge. Moreover, honing in on the city level, the chapter looked at how Helsinki, Odense, Oslo, Örebro and Reykjavík utilise data and indicators to support policy and planning interventions.
A key interest of the study was uncovering what the governance of indicators looks like at different territorial levels, including which actors are involved in the collection and assessment of data. Below, the report discusses the general role of indicators in supporting policy and planning interventions in Nordic countries and cities, as well as some of the more specific areas of use, before setting out the benefits and potential risks involved.
7.2.1 The role of indicators in supporting policy and planning interventions
What role do indicators play in the Nordic countries in supporting policy and planning towards more inclusive cities, both at the national level and in different cities?
Across the Nordic region, indicators are used at both the national and local level to reduce segregation and increase social inclusion, with varying levels of success.
In Denmark, the main indicators affecting segregation-related policies and physical interventions are those informing the so-called ‘ghetto lists’, which specify the areas considered vulnerable or at risk of becoming vulnerable based on levels of income, education, employment, criminal convictions and concentration of non-Western immigrants. While these lists, as well as the legislation informing the pre-emptive and transformation measures attached to them, are national, it is local actors – particularly municipalities and housing associations – that make the greatest use of the indicators in setting up area-based initiatives, as exemplified by the case of Vollsmose, in Odense.
Several challenges arise in relation to the use of these indicators, including the risk of further stigmatising areas on the publicly available ghetto lists. The indicators have also been used to help decide where interventions should be carried out, leading to controversial outcomes, including the displacements of households. On the other hand, using indicators as monitoring tools to prevent areas becoming vulnerable could halt drastic physical and social transformation, and a consequent increase in urban segregation.
In Sweden, comprehensive data and analysis are seen as key to effectively addressing segregation. As such, the Segregation Barometer has been developed in order to monitor, understand and combat segregation trends across the country. The tool is also deployed at local levels – for instance, in Örebro, it has been used to assess the effectiveness of municipal initiatives, including spatial plans designed to foster mixed communities and reduce segregation.
Despite the Segregation Barometer’s numerous strengths, including the fact it is an open-access tool that can be used at multiple territorial scales, certain limitations should also be acknowledged – for example, the categorisation of neighbourhoods is not always in line with local perceptions. Overall, though, the lessons learned from this Swedish tool offer valuable insights for other countries facing similar challenges. In fact, the Segregation Barometer has been mentioned as a source of inspiration in Norway and Finland, where initiatives are underway to create national-level segregation indicators.
In Norway, while numerous municipalities have access to demographic, socio-economic and socio-cultural indicators, their use varies depending on the resources available and strategic goals involved. No comprehensive national system for monitoring segregation trends is currently available, although such a system is on the government agenda. Should such a system come to fruition, the wealth of comparative data it would yield could be used to assess efforts at different levels and inform the selection of areas for state–municipal investments. It could also assist municipalities in their day-to-day tasks, such as distributing welfare funds between administrative districts.
It should be noted, however, that a number of area-based initiatives in Norwegian cities already use quantitative and qualitative indicators to gain a holistic understanding of challenges in specific neighbourhoods. In particular, statistical data is used to identify areas that score poorly compared to the city average on several socio-economic indicators.
In Finland, there are currently no common indicators for urban segregation and social inclusion, and no established way of following up on these issues at a national scale. Given this, several municipalities have independently created their own monitoring systems. In Helsinki, for example, various indicators have been used for decades, with segregation monitored since the 1990s. The majority of Finland’s smaller municipalities, however, lack such indicators, due in part to a lack of necessary resources and expertise. At the national level, this has led to a somewhat fragmented situation in which different municipalities employ their own system of indicators (or no system at all).
In recent years, however, there have been more concerted efforts to develop national indicators for monitoring segregation. One relevant example is a current initiative being undertaken as part of the monitoring of the MAL agreements on land use, housing and transport entered into by the state and Finland’s largest urban regions.
Iceland, for most of its history an extremely homogeneous nation, has over the past couple of decades experienced a significant increase in immigration. Consequently, issues of segregation and inclusion have gained political traction, with steps now being taken to develop a comprehensive social indicator system. Although they are not yet fully integrated into formal policies, these indicators are being used to assess people’s status and situation.
At the city level, Reykjavík strategically uses indicators to guide the planning of services and assess needs based on local demographic and economic characteristics. Meanwhile, at the national level, policy attention in Iceland is shifting towards social inequality, reflected in the ongoing development of social wellbeing, quality of life and social participation indicators.
7.2.2 Purpose and areas of use of indicators
To what extent, how and by whom are indicators used to support policies and strategies at the national, city and neighbourhood level?
A common characteristic of the indicator systems examined in Chapter 4 is that they are used to support policy-making and planning aimed at counteracting urban segregation and fostering social inclusion. Here, two main areas of use can be observed: firstly, monitoring the status and development of local areas; and, secondly, supporting implementation of specific policy initiatives, planning interventions or strategic goals.
For instance, Danish indicators linked to the Ghetto Strategy are used both to assess how the situation in vulnerable areas evolves year on year and as a pre-emptive means of ensuring areas at risk do not fall into further decline. The indicators also inform policies designed to physically transform disadvantaged areas where there is a high presence of public housing and vulnerable groups. Meanwhile, Sweden’s Segregation Barometer provides comprehensive, comparable insights on segregation patterns and trends across the whole country, meaning it can be used to support municipal- and neighbourhood-level planning interventions.
Area-based regeneration of disadvantaged neighbourhoods is a widely applied approach in Nordic cities. Such projects often rely on up-to-date data, especially concerning an area’s housing stock and the socio-economic and demographic composition of its population. Here, indicators may be used to identify which areas should be targeted with what types of measures, and for following up on previous or ongoing interventions.
Often, quantitative indicators are complemented by qualitative indicators to gain a more holistic understanding of local challenges. In Helsinki, for instance, various surveys are used to monitor perceptions of security and wellbeing.
7.2.3 Key benefits and potential risks concerning indicators
What benefits and opportunities do indicators offer, and what are the potential risks and challenges?
The most important benefit of the various national- and municipal-level indicators appears to be the contribution they make to better understanding segregation and social inclusion in the five Nordic countries. The indicators highlighted in the study were for the most part created as tools for analysis in support of policy-making and planning. To this end, their main added value is providing a more nuanced understanding of development patterns and trends, while shedding light on place-specific challenges.
Sweden’s Segregation Barometer especially stands out as a well-designed, harmonised system for monitoring segregation patterns at the national, regional, municipal and sub-municipal levels. Finland and Norway, by contrast, currently lack harmonised national segregation indicators, although there are current initiatives to develop something reminiscent of the Swedish tool. Such systems could prove invaluable in enhancing knowledge concerning segregation, especially when it comes to identifying vulnerable areas at risk of further decline.
A number of potential challenges arise regarding the use of data and indicators for policy and planning purposes. From the perspective of monitoring segregation, it is crucial that knowledge is gathered at a granular level in order to detect which challenges are characteristic of local areas. The geographical borders of statistical units also matter, as standard units may not correspond with actual neighbourhoods, obscuring differences that play out locally. More generally, ensuring access to data on multiple scales is important for assessing different efforts and policies directed at the municipal, district or neighbourhood levels.
A key risk when using indicators to support interventions is the potential for misinterpretation or wrongful application – for instance, applying indicators to purposes outside their intended scope. When dealing with a complex issue such as segregation, there is a very real possibility of oversimplified conclusions being arrived at, including a misdiagnosis of cause and effect. As such, a solid understanding of the issues at hand is critical, as is the institutional ability to accurately interpret data when seeking to make well-informed decisions.
Another important issue highlighted by the study concerns the potential unintended consequences of indicators. For instance, publicly available information generated by indicators identifying highly disadvantaged neighbourhoods risks further stigmatising those areas. In this respect, previous research (e.g., Dean & Hastings, 2000; Power, 1997) has demonstrated that it can be difficult for neighbourhoods to rid themselves of public stigma once it has developed. As such, indicators should be designed and deployed in ways that avoid any potential for reinforcing residential segregation.
In terms of policy goals, one question to consider is whether the ultimate aim is to reduce segregation or, for instance, improve the living conditions and wellbeing of those living in more disadvantaged areas. It terms of policy and planning, these are two quite different objectives, each of which may require their own set of indicators. A recognised dilemma in this regard arises when area investments are justified by existing welfare disparities, yet their primary objective is not necessarily to resolve these disparities. Hence, it is vital that the selected indicators align with realistic goals and ambitions, and that the benefits derived from such indicators outweigh their associated costs.
Regarding area-based interventions specifically, while quantitative indicators can be useful for the initial detection of areas with complex challenges, they are unlikely to reveal noticeable changes within the relatively short duration a programme typically operates. Given that social structures and segregation patterns tend to develop slowly, indicators are most useful for monitoring changes over longer periods of time, and so should be treated with caution when determining cause and effect in the context of time-limited projects.
7.3 Participatory planning for socially inclusive cities and communities
Chapter 5 addressed the third of the study’s four main themes, namely the participatory planning approaches used in the five Nordic countries when seeking to create more socially inclusive cites and neighbourhoods. Having first shed light on how participation is emphasised in national policies and programmes, as well as in key legislation guiding spatial planning and the governance of municipalities, the respective sections turned to the use of participatory approaches at the city and neighbourhood level – specifically, in Tampere, Copenhagen, Sandnes, Umeå and Reykjavík.
The following sections summarise the various participatory planning approaches used in the examined Nordic countries and cities, how they are implemented, and the key opportunities and challenges arising.