These answers are, to some extent, affected by the geographic bias towards urban areas discussed under the section 2.1, showing up as a clear minority of rural residents here. Despite this fact, it is possible to deduct certain representative findings from this data when examining the relative shares instead of total numbers. 

The tables below demonstrate how the geographic background (how urban or rural the respondents’ place of origin was) correlates with their migration history. “Semiurban” refers to the more less condensed settlements surrounding urban centers (suburbs), smaller centers in rural areas, or more rural areas that are however well connected to a nearby urban center. This definition is based on Nordregio’s Nordic urban-rural typology (Stjernberg et al. 2024).

Graph 49. Migration choices that people from urban places of origin have made.

Graph 50. Migration choices that people from semiurban places of origin have made.

Graph 51. Migration choices that people from rural places of origin have made.

These graphs tell us that people from urban places of origin are less inclined to leave them behind, while rural places tend to correlate with people leaving them either indefinitely or for some time. This phenomenon is especially pronounced in Finland and, in contrast, reversed in Sweden, where people are more likely to leave an urban place of origin and least likely to pack their bags in a rural area. Norwegian and Swedish respondents are even more likely to leave from a semiurban area than a rural one, although this difference is less pronounced. In Denmark, people are roughly as likely to leave, stay or return despite the geographic characteristics of their place of origin. 

As can be deduced from the choices of leavers, people with an urban background are generally most likely to stay in their place of origin, again, especially in Finland but also in Norway and Iceland. Sweden sets itself apart from the rest by having more rural than urban stayers. 

When it comes to returning to one’s place of origin, geography appears to have a lesser impact. Norwegians are most likely to return to their rural place of origin later, while Finns and Danes are the most reluctant. As for urban and semi-urban areas, Icelandic respondents are considerably more eager to travel back there than to a rural area.

The tables below categorise the respondents further, based on, first, whether their place of origin can be classified as urban, semiurban, or rural, and secondly, their migration history, and finally how these factors correlate with their future migration preferences.

Graph 52. Geographic background and migration preferences of respondents from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland.

In all countries, people who have left a rural place of origin and settled into a new area are most content to remain living there. In contrast, people from semiurban or urban places appear to live more mobile lives in the sense that since leaving their place of origin, a relatively large share of them are unsure about where to settle. This trend is especially visible in Denmark and Sweden. Finland and Iceland have the most clear majority of rural respondents leaving their place of origin, and this group also shows more variety when it comes to future choices. 

The place of origin also correlates to some extent with the stayers’ future migration preferences. These results further cement the finding that Finnish respondents are clearly more likely to remain in their place of origin if they come from an urban area. This also applies, to lesser extent, to Norway, while in Sweden, it is the rural stayers who are most content to remain. In Denmark and Iceland, the answers are more mixed regarding this point. 

As for those planning or having already returned, they are not necessarily more certain of their choice to remain living there compared to those who have stayed. In Finland, people returning to semiurban places and in Sweden, people returning to rural places emerge as particularly content to remain living there.