Image: Marcus Michaelsen/Unsplash.com

How do the Nordic countries facilitate reductions in net land take?

In this section, attention is turned to the strategic orientations and broader mechanisms that reflect the net land take agenda in the Nordic context. First, land cover and land take characteristics, along with planning and land governance institutions, in the Nordic countries are described to build an understanding of the broader framework within which decisions related to land take are made. Next, an overview is presented of current Nordic policies, regulations and practices with a connection to land sparing ambitions. The intention is not to provide an exhaustive list of all measures related to land take and soil sealing but rather to describe the main mechanisms that support or constrain progress towards the zero net land take agenda.

Nordic land cover and land take characteristics

The land cover conditions of a specific country, region or municipality greatly influence its potential future land take trajectories. A summary is provided here of country-level land cover characteristics (Table 2), based on the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) land cover country sheets, which are compiled using data from the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service CORINE Land cover dataset (2000–2018). The land cover characteristics vary substantially across the Nordic countries. In Denmark, the major land cover category is agricultural land. The share of built-up land is also high in Denmark (8.26 %) compared to other Nordic countries. Finland and Sweden are countries with high shares of forest cover and inland waters and wetlands. Iceland and Norway both have large areas of open space with little or no vegetation, as well as natural grassland, heathland or shrubland, dry vegetation types and relatively low shares of agricultural land.

The assessment of land use changes and land take patterns has emerged as a prominent field of research in response to increasing concerns over the sustainable management of land and soil resources globally (e.g. Mir et al., 2025). The development of land take monitoring practices has been driven, in particular, by the need to track progress towards the NNLT objective (Venter et al., 2026). Monitoring (net) land take involves making choices regarding the object of monitoring (how land take is defined) and the methods and data used for calculating conversions in land surfaces. The EEA, for example, has produced statistics on net land take in cities and commuting zones in Europe based on the Urban Atlas and CORINE Land cover datasets (most recent version, EEA 2025a). These statistics record annual net land take figures by land cover classes, measured in square kilometres, for functional urban areas in Europe. They do not therefore record all land cover changes within a country.

Using higher-resolution land cover maps than the CORINE Land cover dataset, in a recent study, Venter et al. (2026) provide estimates of land take in European countries. Their study shows that when land take is measured in relation to the number of inhabitants (land take per capita), land take figures in the Nordic countries are among the highest in Europe. Using 2023 population figures, they observe the highest rate in Norway (6.26±0.94 m² citizen^-1 yr^-1), followed by Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark. Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden converted, in particular, natural and semi-natural land into artificial land use forms between 2018 and 2023, while in Denmark the land take regime is dominated by a reduction of cropland (Venter et al., 2026). These per-capita figures naturally do not reveal anything about the drivers of land take and their distribution across national territories. In some locations, land take is driven primarily by residential development, while elsewhere, land uses such as transport and logistics, industry and energy production, contribute more to the aggregate land conversion figures. Unfortunately, many available data sources are poorly suited to producing information about the drivers of land take (Venter et al., 2026).

	Denmark	Finland	Iceland	Norway	Sweden
Built-up land (%)	8.26	1.41	0.39	0.92	1.53
Agricultural land (%)	72.49	8.30	2.55	5.32	8.83
Forests and shrubland (%)	11.93	71.82	0.89	35.38	65.60
Natural grassland, … (%)	1.97	2.13	36.85	14.55	6.56
Open space with little or no vegetation (%)	–	–	49.61	32.86	2.50
Water bodies and wetlands (%)	5.36	15.76	9.69	10.97	14.97
Land take per capita (m² citizen^-1 yr^-1)	2.79	5.39	3.27	6.26	3.56

Table 2. Summary of land cover and land take characteristics in the Nordic countries.
Land cover figures are based on EEA land cover country fact sheets (EEA 2021) and the land take figures of Venter et al. (2026).

The Nordic planning and land governance context

The Nordic countries are welfare states known for their progressive planning and land use policies. Land use and development are strongly regulated and the concept of delivering public goods through planning is deeply rooted in the Nordic planning culture. Public authorities at different levels of government control spatial development through a hierarchy of plans but also apply various other policy instruments and approaches, such as public land development, taxes and economic incentives, to steer land use outcomes (Caesar, 2016; Krigsholm et al., 2022).

The Nordic countries have a similar hierarchical structure of government. Within this structure, the central government and municipalities are the most important levels of government. Both the central government and the municipalities levy taxes and have statutory duties to provide various services for citizens. Corresponding to the general administrative structure, the central government and the municipalities are important actors within the spatial planning and land governance framework (Slätmo et al., 2021). The central government is responsible for preparing legislation that affects spatial development, i.e. planning legislation and legislation of other sectors with an indirect impact on spatial development (such as agriculture, forestry and nature conservation). Moreover, the central government prepares strategic planning documents that guide land use at sub-national levels. These documents may have a legally binding status or be non-binding by their nature. Central governments also negotiate agreements concerning land use, housing and transport initiatives with regional and local actors (such as Sverigeförhandlingen in Sweden, Byveksavtaler in Norway and MAL agreements in Finland). Such contracts between public authorities at different levels of government can be described as strategic planning instruments, with the negotiations often involving trading transport infrastructure funding in exchange for housing commitments.

The role of the regional level is weak in Nordic planning frameworks, with the distribution of powers favouring the local level (Lundgren et al., 2026). Municipalities independently draft and approve plans – mainly municipal and local detailed plans – that determine where and what type of land use changes take place within their jurisdiction. In some Nordic countries, the municipality is the only party with the right to initiate planning processes. This is called a “planning monopoly”. In Norway, however, the majority of detailed plans are developer-initiated (Stjernström et al., 2023).

The content of municipal and local plans must not contradict the content of higher-level planning documents (regional plans, national directives, policies and guidelines). Nevertheless, the Nordic countries differ in the extent to which higher-level authorities become involved in municipal-level planning. In Denmark, the national authority responsible for spatial planning can only object to municipal plans if there is a conflict with the national interests defined in the Overview of National Interests in Municipal Planning (Galland, 2022). In Finland, regional or national actors do not have the authority to control or disapprove of local plans that align with regional land use plans (Purkarthofer and Mattila, 2023). In Iceland, the national planning agency examines and approves all plans produced by local authorities (Theodórsdóttir, 2023). In Norway, regional and national actors, as well as the Sami Parliament and neighbouring municipalities, have the right to object to a municipal plan that is considered to negatively affect their interests (Birnbrich, 2023). In Sweden, the county administrative boards review all comprehensive municipal plans and detailed plans to ensure that national and inter-municipal interests are met (Schmitt, 2023).

Furthermore, many municipalities in the Nordic countries employ an active land policy strategy, i.e. they apply policy instruments beyond planning purposes to encourage plan implementation, implement land value capture and intentionally advance various policy goals (Krigsholm et al., 2022).

Current policies, regulations and practices

The Nordic countries have no binding commitments to pursue zero net land take or to achieve certain thresholds in net land take at the national level. There are, however, various policies, regulations and practices that reflect the objectives and mechanisms of net land take reduction. In this section, a general overview is presented of 1) strategic orientations that can be linked to land take reduction ambitions and 2) mechanisms supporting and challenging land take reduction in the Nordic planning and land governance context.

Related strategic orientations in the Nordic Region

A core principle of the Nordic planning and land governance frameworks is to advance sustainable development in a broad sense. This abstract goal is translated into land use practice through objectives set at different levels of government. Legislation and national steering documents outline nationally significant objectives for spatial development. In Finland, the National Land Use Objectives (Finnish Government 2017), enacted in 2018, contain several qualitative objectives related to land take, including to support low-carbon and resource-efficient development that utilises the existing urban structure and to promote the preservation of areas valuable for biodiversity and ecological connections. Similarly, in Norway, the government’s planning guidelines (Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development 2023) underline the importance of land use planning that protects nature for nature diversity and ecosystems, carbon capture and storage, surface water management, local climate, pollution, outdoor recreation, health and well-being, and various other ecosystem services. The planning guidelines furthermore state that densification and transformation of residential and commercial areas should be prioritised over greenfield development.

In Iceland, the strategic objectives set in the National Planning Policy 2024–2038 emphasise the balancing of land use changes with nature and the landscape. Planning for climate change and contributing to carbon neutrality is formulated as a cross-cutting objective (Icelandic National Planning Agency 2024). The Danish national planning process is organised around several identified priority areas and related directives announced by the responsible ministry (Plan- og Landdistriktsstyrelsen 2026). There is no national planning in Sweden, but the need for this has been identified and is currently being examined (Boverket 2026). The process is motivated by considerations related to environmental protection, the green transition and civil and military preparedness.

Nordic municipalities have formulated their own strategic objectives related to land take. The objectives mainly concern i) densification and making the existing city structure more compact and ii) conserving and creating urban green areas. These two objectives are often in conflict, although this tension remains unarticulated in policy documents (Hautamäki et al., 2024). In Denmark, densification is mentioned in the majority of municipal planning documents (Fertner et al., 2023), while green city initiatives and the incorporation of more urban green spaces are also gaining traction (Green Cities in Denmark, 2020). In Finland, most larger cities are pursuing densification as a strategic land use policy objective (Krigsholm, 2024) and increasingly define urban greening objectives in their municipal climate action plans (Hautamäki et al., 2024). Swedish municipalities are also pursuing densification of larger urban cores. Municipal measures to increase and improve green space in urban areas, with the aim of ensuring healthy, liveable and biodiverse urban landscapes, are widespread (Borges et al., 2025). In Iceland, the City of Reykjavik has an ambitious climate action plan that stresses the importance of densification and green city development policies (City of Reykjavik 2025).

The Norwegian concept of arealnøytralitet (which translates to "land neutrality" or "area neutrality") broadly corresponds to the NNLT objective. The term was coined by the environmental organisation Sabima in 2013 and follows the same logic as "net zero" frameworks in climate policy: the goal is to avoid net loss of nature in connection with land use change. In 2019, Flakstad Municipality became the first in Norway to adopt arealnøytralitet as an explicit goal in its plans, and in 2023, Nordre-Follo became the first municipality to embed the principle as a legally binding provision in the land use element of its municipal master plan (Hanssen et al., 2025). As of 2026, 87 Norwegian municipalities have reported that they are working towards arealnøytralitet/area neutrality, with some using the land take mitigation hierarchy in planning decisions (Sabima n.d.). While the rapid uptake reflects political will among a significant share of Norwegian local governments to align their planning with biodiversity commitments, there is no national legal standard for arealnøytralitet and the goal itself remains a voluntary municipal commitment.

In Finland, the ten largest cities have recently announced that they are aiming for net nature-positive actions (City of Espoo 2025), meaning that their target is for municipal actions to create more positive than negative impacts on nature. While this is a broader target and is not purely related to land use (change), land use decisions play an important role in advancing and achieving it. The City of Lahti, for example, has published a nature positivity road map that lists actions across different domains (such as land use and natural environment, education, health and well-being) that contribute to the nature positivity target (City of Lahti 2026). Actions in the land use and natural environment domain make up almost half the total number of actions included in the road map. The first listed action for this domain is to assess future detailed planning processes through the lens of the mitigation hierarchy (City of Lahti 2026).

Nordic mechanisms supporting and challenging land take mitigation

Avoidance

Legislation and policies at a national level can ensure that areas of high natural and/or cultural value and fertile agricultural land are preserved from land use changes. The Nordic countries have varying proportions of terrestrial nature conservation areas (ranging from 13–16 percent in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden to 20 percent in Iceland (EEA 2025b). The degree of protection varies among different types of conservation areas, but, in general, conservation areas represent strong protective measures, as they prevent land consumption. Sensitive ecosystems and cultural landscapes can also be protected by land use regulations at the municipal level. The degree of protection (i.e. which actions are permissible, restricted or prohibited) depends on the ecological significance or vulnerability of the area. National legislation defines how ecosystem types are differentiated and what type of environmental impact and risk assessments must be included in planning processes. Landowners can also voluntarily commit to conserving their land. In Finland, for example, there is a voluntary forest conservation programme under which landowners protect their forests in exchange for financial compensation (METSO Programme, Metsonpolku n.d.).

In some Nordic countries, prime farmland is actively preserved. In Norway, the government has set a national farmland preservation target: the annual conversion of prime farmland is not to exceed 2,000 dekar (200 hectares) by 2030. This target has been progressively tightened over time (from 6,000 dekar in 2010 down to 2,000 by 2030). The goal was set during the Storting's deliberations on the updated national soil protection strategy in June 2023. In Sweden, farming is designated in the Environmental Code as being of national importance, with building on farmland essentially forbidden unless needed due to important public interests (Slätmo, 2017). However, the balancing of interests is undertaken by municipalities in their spatial planning. As a result, implementation differs across municipalities.

Since the Nordic planning frameworks grant municipalities substantial capacity to regulate land use and development within their jurisdictions, avoidance of land take is advanced particularly through municipal plans. Municipal plans determine most effectively where land use changes should be avoided. “The right to build” comes with an approved (detailed) plan and Nordic municipalities, in principle, can effectively avoid land take outside planned areas should they wish to do so. However, in Finland, for example, the planning culture has been fairly permissive towards building single family houses outside planned areas (Heinilä, 2017). The decentralised planning system in general does not incentivise municipalities to avoid excessive land take, and conservation efforts and provision of land for purposes that maintain the growth and development of cities and settlements are constantly at odds in municipal level-planning (Slätmo et al., 2021). Indeed, municipalities perceive the ability to provide land areas for industry and businesses, residential buildings, holiday homes etc. as an important advantage in competition with other municipalities (Tönnesen et al., 2023). They therefore sometimes see strict land use regulations as hindering their development prospects and instead actively strive for flexibility in the provision of land for development (Krigsholm et al., 2022).

Nonetheless, there are examples of municipalities limiting land consumption through urban growth boundaries in addition to avoiding land use changes in certain locations. The City of Oslo is a prominent example of this. The green belt of Oslo includes the Marka forest areas, which were protected by a national law in 2009, restricting the expansion of settlements in several municipalities surrounding Oslo (Tiitu et al., 2021). In Iceland, the Reykjavik Municipal Plan 2040 and the Regional Plan for the Capital Region similarly steer urban development within the established growth boundary for the city (City of Reykjavik 2022; SSH 2015).

Another way to avoid land take is to down-zone areas that were previously regarded as suitable for a certain degree of development and planned accordingly but have not yet been developed. Down-zoning entails property owners losing some of their rights of disposal over the land, as the municipality has reassessed the public interest. Although down-zoning does not necessarily mean avoiding land take or restoring land to nature, such measures could be used to achieve reductions in land take and soil sealing. Down-zoning may, for example, involve land use changes aimed at improving resilience against climate change while also contributing to nature restoration, or measures to limit sprawl by reducing areas planned for second homes. Down-zoning is often regarded by municipalities and property owners as an unwanted measure, as it interferes with property rights and might lead to compensation payments that strain public budgets. The Nordic countries vary in how the right to compensation due to down-zoning is defined. In Sweden for example, compensation is based on the economic damage and loss of market value of the property caused by the planning change. In addition, an extra 25 percent of the change in market value is added in order to reduce impacts on property owners. However, compensation is only paid during the implementation period of the local plan, which may be 5–15 years after the plan becomes legally binding (Sjödin et al., 2016).

Reuse and minimising

Densification and compact city policies have been actively promoted by Nordic municipalities over the last few decades (Røe et al., 2022). Strong municipal influence through planning is important in advancing densification as a policy objective, since it allows municipalities to determine where new building rights are issued. A distinct feature of the Nordic densification and compact strategies is the broad variety of operationalisation scales: municipalities of all sizes from small towns to capital cities implement such strategies (Tunström et al., 2018; Røe et al., 2022). Naturally, the means of implementing densification vary across settings. Larger cities, in particular, have allocated new development to larger-scale brownfield redevelopment project areas. Notable examples of such project areas include Nordhavn in Copenhagen, Denmark; Jätkäsaari and Kalasatama in Helsinki, Finland; Fjord City in Oslo, Norway; and Hammarby Sjöstad and Norra Djurgårdsstaden in Stockholm, Sweden.

In larger-scale densification projects, municipal involvement tends to be high (Puustinen et al., 2022). In extreme cases, this means a comprehensive public land development model in which the municipality assembles land, builds the needed infrastructure and allocates the developable plots to builders (Valtonen et al., 2017). The model, commonly applied particularly in Finland and Sweden, allows municipalities to steer densifying development to an even higher degree than through planning. For example, incentives to deliver on environmental goals can take the form of larger land allocations or priority in planning processes.

In many Nordic settings, densification and compact strategies are directed towards the outer city and near public transport hubs (e.g. Rosengren et al., 2024). This type of transit-oriented development aims to increase building densities near transport hubs or nodes and thereby ensure public transportation access for new residents. Such development might involve reuse and densification of already built-up areas or brownfield development but usually entails some degree of new land take. One such case is the Icelandic Borgarlína initiative in the regional plan for the capital region, which aims to develop the public transport network around Reykjavik and concentrate new, denser housing development around transit hubs (Lidmo et al. 2024). Such initiatives seek to balance a focus on growth with limits to land take.

Densities are also increased through smaller-scale projects, such as infill developments and extensions to existing buildings. Municipalities apply various policy instruments beyond planning purposes to advance such incremental forms of densification. In Finland, for example, it is common for municipalities to grant discounts on land use fees to make infill development a more financially attractive option for private landowners and developers (Krigsholm et al., 2025). Other types of instruments are also used, including strategic public land acquisitions and information-based instruments, such as contacting landowners with personalised letters about potential for densification (Krigsholm et al., 2022).

Nature restoration aims to assist the recovery of damaged ecosystems, thereby enhancing ecosystem health and biodiversity. Restoration of nature areas is undertaken based on the (potential) nature value of the area and/or other goals with similar effects, such as climate risk mitigation and adaptation. The EU highlights the issue in its Nature Restoration Law. In the Nordic context, the Danish Green Tripartite initiative (Ministry of Green Transition, 2026) stands out as a particularly far-reaching restoration-oriented initiative. It aims to advance efforts in biodiversity, climate action and water quality by converting large amounts of lowland farmland into natural areas, such as wetlands and meadows, and by establishing new forest areas. An agreement between the government, business interests and civil society organisations is supported by a Green Land Fund and by local tripartite groups comprising municipalities, the central government and representatives of property owners, business interests and civil society organisations concerned with environmental protection (Ministry of Green Transition, 2026). The initiative should be understood in the context of the large share of agricultural land in Denmark, aiming to lower emissions from the agricultural industry.

In Iceland, the 2016 Climate Action Plan includes a programme for restoration of wetlands. In addition, efforts to restore forests are undertaken to reduce soil erosion and degradation, as well as improve recreational opportunities (Land and Forest Iceland, n.d.). Although restoration measures are being implemented, the extent and quality of wetlands continue to decline (Barry, 2025).

Compensating

In the Nordic countries, the ecological damage caused by land use changes affecting protected areas must be compensated for. However, land use changes associated with planning and development rarely affect protected areas. As a result, compensation measures are often implemented on a voluntary basis (Morell et al., 2026). Sweden has been a Nordic frontrunner in compensating for ecological damage caused by land use changes. Some Swedish municipalities have adopted compensation policies for cases where the use of land for urban development or for agricultural or forestry activities leads to biodiversity losses. Uppsala Municipality has a particularly progressive policy that goes beyond the legislation and policies found in most other municipalities (Uppsala, 2024). Compensation measures need to be taken on municipal land, and voluntary measures on private land are encouraged through incentives and financial compensation. The goal is to reach 10 percent greater coverage of natural land than before the impact occurred, with the effects lasting for at least 30 years.

In Finland and Norway too, voluntary conservation instruments have been included in legislation and the number of planning and development processes implementing compensation measures is growing. In Finland, the new Nature Conservation Act includes voluntary biodiversity offsetting as a conservation instrument and the no-net-loss principle is increasingly being integrated into (urban) planning processes (Lähde et al., 2025). Implementation cases are still limited but the City of Vantaa, for example, has announced, as part of its nature positivity commitment, that it intends to apply the instrument to all plans that result in losses of nature values. In Norway, compensation measures are usually negotiated as part of the land development process. Although rooted in conservation policy, these processes mainly operate within land markets and planning and infrastructure policy (Habermann and Bergheim, 2026).