Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Blaðsíða 201

■ 1
i ■ i r ■ T .111
i iii ■l
populated
~ □ Periphery
I Densely
I I I I I
I I li'

///////////S///s.
t’ J J 9 <J
j J' j
J rJ

r
j‘
Figure 2. Share of employment and forest cut outside larger urban areas.
E,XU) _ g,(t,) \Elr(t,) E,QJ
£,v(í,) £,(',)+t £,,('•) E,(t,)
i.e. the representation of
industry i in region r at time t^
divided by the same representa-
tion at time tj. The first expres-
sion on the right hand side of
the equation is the structure
component and represents the
hypothetical relative change of
employment between the two
periods if region r had the same
change as the national average.
The expression in the braces
(which is the difference between
observed changes and the struc-
ture component) represents
thus the shift component.
Mulitplying out the denomina-
tor on the left hand side, we get
the expression in absolute val-
ues. Table 2 shows the winner
and loser regions in maunufac-
ture of wood and wood products
in the period 1990-95.
Distribution in municipal cate-
gories and regional periphery
centre restructuring
So far the discussion has con-
cerned specific geographical
regions and therefore only indi-
rectly been able to shed light on
questions of the importance of the
forest industries in rural Norway.
We now turn our attention to
whether any regional restructuring
has occurred e.g. between the
periphery and urban areas, and
what the characteristics are of the
regions that stand out regarding
size, significance and develop-
ment of forest industries.
As Figure 2 shows, 69% of the
employement in manufacture of
wood and wood products is out-
side the larger urban regions, of
which 22% is in peripheral areas.
The corresponding shares for
forestry are 70% and 25% and for
pulp and paper industry 46%
and 0%.
To illustrate the extent to
which a regional restructuring of
forest industries has taken place,
e.g. between the periphery and
the centre, table 3 focuses on
changes in the distribution of
these industries between various
municipal categories, according
to centrality, between the years
1980, 1990 and 1995.
From 1980to 1990, both the
peripheral areas and densely
populated areas increased their
share of employment in the
wood and wood products indus-
try at the expense of the large
Table 2. Winner and loser regions in manufacture of wood and wood products
1990-95.
Employment 1990 Change 1990-1995
Percent Nuinber Share Shift
Total 16,766 -16 -2,599 -2,599 0
Winner regions 1990-1995
Egersund 548 17 92 -85 177
Farsund 295 43 126 -46 172
Asker/Bærum 167 46 76 -26 102
Kristiansand 345 12 42 -53 95
Trondheim 418 4 15 -65 80
Loser regions 1990-1995
Larvik 662 -31 -205 -103 -102
Kongsvinger 875 -28 -242 -136 -106
Skien/Porsgrunn 324 -58 -188 -50 -138
0vre-Romerike 758 -37 -284 -118 -166
ikmar 1853 -12 =222 -m -243
Table 3. Employment in forest industries according to centrality, 1980, 1990 and
1995 (%).
Total Wood and wood products Pulp and paper
1980 11 18 1
Periphery 1990 12 20 0
1995 13 22 0

1980 37 46 46
Densely populated areas 1990 38 49 44
1995 38 47 46

1980 51 35 54
Larger urban areas 1990 50 31 56
1995 48 31 54
SKÓGRÆKTARRiTIÐ 2001 l.tbl
199