Discussion
After reviewing the objectives, mechanisms, and key actors related to cycling in these Nordic countries, several key findings come to light.
Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden all have some form of national-level cycling objectives and mechanisms, though these take many different forms. Objectives are sometimes found in explicit cycling-related documents, such as a national cycling strategy, but are more often baked into other key laws, plans, and planning instruments, such as an infrastructure plan, climate strategy, transport strategy, or within a national climate act. Cycling is implicated in a wide range of national-level aims including traffic safety, health objectives, sustainable mobility, climate objectives, and even cultural objectives.
While all four of the countries have some form of national cycling strategy, the latest strategies from Denmark and Norway were published around 10 years ago. Sweden’s most recent strategy is from 2017, while Finland’s equivalent of a cycling strategy, the walking and cycling promotion programme published in 2018, combines walking and cycling, thereby widening its scope and risking less clear expression for how cycling in its own right can be addressed and advanced. It is also important to recognise the distinctions across the government systems in these Nordic countries. Sweden and Finland do not have ministerial rule, and Denmark and Norway have larger and more operational ministries than, for example, in Sweden, where spatial planning often takes place through more autonomous agencies (Schmidt & Smas, 2018). There are some differences with regards to which ministries hold greater responsibilities for establishing or monitoring cycling strategies in these countries as well, in addition to the reality that ministry responsibilities may change over the years. For example, in 2017 in Sweden, the Ministry for Infrastructure was within the Ministry of Enterprise, but these became two distinct ministries between 2019 and 2022.
Then, in 2022, the Ministry of Infrastructure merged with the Ministry of Rural Development and Infrastructure. Another example of agency reshuffling comes from Denmark, where, in 2022, the Agency of Planning and Rural Development—responsible for spatial planning and urban development—was established under the Ministry of Church Affairs. Such changes have implications for how cycling and other transport issues are addressed in the Nordic countries.
Within current policies, cycling is primarily discussed as a means for contributing to environmental goals, such as GHG emissions reductions. Several of the countries also mention some of the additional co-benefits of cycling, such as contributing to healthy and active lifestyles. However, much less of the cycling policy discourse in the Nordic countries centres on the potential social and economic benefits of cycling. This contrasts, for example, with the Dutch cycling agenda, wherein the bicycle is framed as a means for providing social participation and combatting poverty in mobility as well as providing access to economic centres, contributing to the rural economy, combatting social isolation, empowering people to be more independent, reducing healthcare costs, and improving overall quality of life.
[1] The additional benefits of the bicycle are important to highlight for several reasons. Firstly, they reveal the vast opportunities for synergies among different national (and local or regional) authorities, for example ministries of transport or climate and environment as well as culture, finance, or education ministries, housing and building authorities, and even regional health authorities. Additionally, as elucidated by a study of local planners in Sweden, “clear and integrated cooperation” within and across municipalities as well as with “relevant actors at regional and national levels” is a critical need (Alm & Koglin, 2022, 7). As described in each country section, achieving national cycling objectives requires clear communication among local, regional, and national actors. This is especially challenging when it comes to developing cycling infrastructure and maintenance routines that enable residents to commute across roads owned by authorities at different governance levels (i.e., state versus local roads). Vertical alignment among national, regional, and municipal actors is thus particularly important for cycling work given the differences in road ownership distribution. Meanwhile, horizontal linkages across municipalities can ensure more cooperation and common procurements and procedures for cycle lanes, all of which helps to enable cohesive networks, such as the facilitation of Supercykelstier in Denmark. Cooperation among actors is also critical when it comes to funding opportunities. In all of the Nordic countries, cycling measures are supported by both local and national funding schemes that, together, help municipalities and regions see tangible results.
Secondly, these co-benefits distinguish the bicycle from other methods of adopting alternative low-carbon or green transport modes. Much of the discussion around reducing GHG emissions in the transportation sector has focussed on replacing fossil-fuel cars with electric-powered vehicles. While the achievement of global goals will undoubtedly require the implementation of multiple decarbonisation strategies, research suggests that increasing the use of electric vehicles is an ineffective long-term method for sustainability (see Hosseini & Stegniec, 2023; Sovacool et al., 2022; Moriarty, 2022). This is due not only to high emissions outputs on the production side of electric vehicles, but also the broader infrastructure and urban form which electric vehicles require cities to maintain. Electric vehicles maintain car-dependent landscapes (such as urban sprawl) thereby preventing the positive consequences of a denser urban structure or transit-oriented development. They also require a large amount of public and private space to continue to be allocated for parking and additional space for charging. Further still, they reinforce a socioeconomic divide in which cities are shaped by and for wealthier inhabitants who can afford private automobiles, at the expense of ensuring public space is accessible to all. Hosseini and Stefaniec (2023) describe the injustices created by car-oriented societies (electric or not) as a form of structural violence. In reference to Ong (2006), they emphasise how driving an electric vehicle can give one the comfort of doing something responsible and even sustainable but “leaves them in a sphere of ignorance” towards the social and environmental consequences of car-dominant societies (Hosseini & Stefaniec, 2023, 4).
Such challenges are not easy to overcome. Given the state of the climate emergency, vehicle electrification is often seen as an immediate step towards reducing emissions in regions dominated by car transport and with infrastructure catering to this transport mode. And while cycling and driving need not be at war, a more dramatic change in behaviour is necessary if the Nordic countries are to develop in an equitable, economically viable, and environmentally friendly manner. This often begins by prioritising the most vulnerable street users first. As Alm and Koglin (2022) describe, “the fact that it is often easier to increase cycling as long as it does not interfere with car traffic is not only a problem in Sweden, but in many other countries as well” (7); yet, cycling infrastructure must prioritise the cyclist over the driver when it comes to factors of “accessibility, safety, and directness” (2).
Another related concern when aiming to increase cycling to meet environmental objectives is to encourage modal shift away from cars, rather than from other sustainable modes of transport. Both Norway and Finland have sought to address these issues to some extent in their national-level objectives. For example, Norway’s zero-growth goal suggests that growth of passenger transport in major urban areas over the coming years should be absorbed through public transportation, cycling, and walking. Similarly, Finland’s objective in the National Climate and Energy Strategy points out that people’s growing mobility needs should be met by sustainable transport modes rather than passenger cars. Furthermore, while several solutions have emerged for cargo delivery bikes
[2] or moving bikes,
[3] little discussion appears (at the national level) regarding opportunities for modal shift from lorries to delivery e-bikes.