National reports on case selection – Denmark

Abstract

The purpose of report D4.3 is to present the case study selection and the cases for Denmark. The case study selection was based on a two-step procedure. Initially, a region was chosen. In Denmark, main responsibility for governance is located at the national and municipal level while the regional level has more limited responsibility. By choosing a region and municipalities as cases, the cases will correspond to statistical and administrative units meaning that 1) in relation to statistics, the rich register data of Denmark can be utilised and 2) in relation of administrative units, the regional and municipal level of governance can be more aptly taken into account. The Central Denmark Region was chosen as case, the choice being between this region and the Capital Region as they are the only two regions with sufficiently large cities for subsequently selecting a metropolitan case. The final argument for selecting the Central Denmark Region was that it is more representative and less radical than the Capital Region, and that the Central Denmark Region demonstrates more innovative cases in terms of collaboration across civil society, business and municipality. Within the Central Denmark Region, a metropolitan, a suburban and a rural case was selected. The metropolitan case was a given as there is only one metropolitan municipality in the region, namely Aarhus. While the municipality is small for a metropolitan municipality, it is the second largest in Denmark and interesting precisely for the reason of not being the main, capital region. It is a city in growth and of growth but also a city of spatial segregation with three deprived areas on the so-called “ghetto”-list. For the suburban case, Horsens was selected. Horsens represents a case of spatial inequalities, of overall population growth but with a decline in some parishes as well, of active policies to secure financial growth and of challenges in specific social housing areas that has led to two areas being on the government’s list of vulnerable areas, one of them being amongst the 16 hardest ghettos of Denmark. Finally, Lemvig was chosen as the rural case. Lemvig is a peripheral municipality with challenges related to a shrinking population, changing demography and local economy. At the same time, it is a case of potentials in the sense of a high number of start-ups and of business potentials within the primary sector (fishery) and the wind-power market as well as a municipal vision of developing its west coast to a recreational area with a thematic focus on surfing, the geological history and the nature in general. Looking across the three cases based on the desk study of D4.3, several interesting themes stand out already. The three localities share the position of being part of the same intermediate region, in the sense that it is neither the main region of growth nor the one struggling the most. This defines the position of all three localities within the region. They all face challenges but at the same time offer potentials and identifiable routes for future development. The challenges and potential differ however. For the metropolitan and suburban case, main challenges relate to spatial segregation and specific social housing areas marked by concentrated deprivation. Both the suburban and the rural case are interesting with respect to growth policies; both trying to some extent to reinvent themselves.