Paikkatietohakemisto
dataset
Type of resources
Available actions
Topics
Keywords
Contact for the resource
Provided by
Years
Formats
Representation types
Update frequencies
status
Service types
Scale
Resolution
-
FIN Aineiston tarkoituksena on: -Identifioida tie- ja rata-alueet, joiden varrella esiintyy uhanalaisia ja silmälläpidettäviä lajeja -Identifioida tie- ja rata-alueet, joiden varrella esiintyy hyviä elinvoimaisia niittyindikaattorilajeja (hyönteisten mesi- ja ravintokasveja) -Identifioida tie- ja rata-alueet, joiden varrella esiintyy suojelualueita -Identifioida tie- ja rata-alueet, joiden varrella esiintyy komealupiinia tai kurtturuusua -Identifioida tie- ja rata-alueet, joiden varrella esiintyy komealupiinia tai kurtturuusua uhanalaisten lajien lisäksi -> Löytää herkät alueet ja paikallistaa vieraslajien uhka Tieto esitetään 1 kilometrin ruuduissa. Aineistosta on julkaistu kaksi erillistä versiota. -VaylanvarsienVieraslajitJaArvokkaatElinymparistot_avoin: Avoin versio, jonka lajitietoa on karkeistettu mahdollisista herkistä lajeista johtuen. Aineisto kuuluu SYKEn avoimiin aineistoihin (CC BY 4.0) ja sitä saa käyttää lisenssiehtojen mukaisesti -VaylanvarsienVieraslajitJaArvokkaatElinymparistot_kayttorajoitettu: Alkuperäinen karkeistamaton versio. Tämä versio on vain viranomaiskäyttöön eikä kyseistä aineistoa saa jakaa Aineistosta on tehty tarkempi menetelmäkuvaus https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/VierasVayla_Menetelmakuvaus.pdf sekä muuttujaseloste https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/VierasVayla_VariableDescription.xlsx ENG The purpose of the material is to: -Identify road and rail areas that have nearby observations of endangered and near threatened species -Identify road and rail areas with good meadow indicator plant species -Identify road and rail areas along which there are protected areas -Identify the road and rail areas along which there are observations of Lupinus polyphyllus or Rosa rugosa observations -Identify the road and rail areas along which there are Lupinus polyphyllus or Rosa rugosa observations in addition to sensitive species -> Finds sensitive areas and identify the overall threat of alien species The data is presented in 1-kilometer square grid cells. There are two separate versions of the data. -VaylanvarsienVieraslajitJaArvokkaatElinymparistot_avoin: Open access version, in which its species-related parts have been simplified due to data restriction issues. The material belongs to Syke's open materials (CC BY 4.0) and may be used in accordance with the license terms. -VaylanvarsienVieraslajitJaArvokkaatElinymparistot_kayttorajoitettu: Original version. This version is only for official use and the material in question may not be shared. A more precise description about the data procedures can be found from (In Finnish) https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/VierasVayla_Menetelmakuvaus.pdf Furthermore, all the variables in the data are explained in this bilingual variable description https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/VierasVayla_VariableDescription.xlsx This dataset was updated with the newest species observations on 10/2023 and 11/2024 Process code for this can be found from https://github.com/PossibleSolutions/VierasVayla_SpeciesUpdate
-
This dataset represents the Integrated biodiversity status assessment for seals (grey seal, harbour seal and ringed seal). Status is shown in five categories based on the integrated assessment scores obtained in the tool. Biological quality ratios (BQR) above 0.6 correspond to good status. The status of the seals was assessed using four core indicators: population trends and abundance of seals, distribution of Baltic seals, nutritional status of seals, and reproductive status of seals. In the latter two only grey seals are considered for the 2018 State of the Baltic Sea report. The assessment is based on the one-out-all-out approach, i.e. the species reflecting the worst status in each assessment unit. This dataset displays the result of the integrated biodiversity status in HELCOM Assessment unit Scale 2 (Division of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins). Attribute information: "HELCOM_ID" = ID of the HELCOM scale 2 assessment unit "level_2" = Name of the HELCOM scale 2 assessment unit "EcosystemC" = Ecosystem component analyzed "BQR" = Biological Quality Ratio "Conf" = Confidence of the assessment "Total_indi" = Number of indicators used "% of area assessed" = Share of the total assessed area "D1CX" = MSFD descriptor 1 criteria X "conf_D1CX" = Confidence for MSFD descriptor criteria X "Confidence" = Conifdence of the assessment ("high"/ "moderate"/ "low") "STATUS" = Status of the assessment (0-0.2 = not good (lowest score), 0.2-0.4 = not good (lower score), 0.4-0.6 = not good (low score), 0.6-0.8 = good (high score, 0.8-1.0 = good (highest score))
-
The Baltic Sea Impact Index is an assessment component that describes the potential cumulative burden on the environment in different parts of the Baltic Sea. The BSII is based on georeferenced datasets of human activities (36 datasets), pressures (18 datasets) and ecosystem components (36 datasets), and on sensitivity estimates of ecosystem components (so-called sensitivity scores) that combine the pressure and ecosystem component layers, created in <a href="http://www.helcom.fi/helcom-at-work/projects/holas-ii" target="_blank">HOLAS II</a> project. Cumulative impacts are calculated for each assessment unit (1 km2 grid cells) by summing all pressures occurring in the unit for each ecosystem component. Highest impacts are found from the cells where both are abundant, but high impacts can be caused also by a single pressure if there are diverse and sensitive habitats in the grid cell. All data sets and methodologies used in the index calculations are approved by all HELCOM Contracting Parties in review and acceptance processes. This data set covers the time period 2011-2016. Please scroll down to "Lineage" and visit <a href="http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/cumulative-impacts/" target="_blank">State of the Baltic Sea website</a> for more info.
-
Grid net for statistics 5 km x 5 km covers whole of Finland. The grid net includes all grid cells in Finland. The location reference of a grid cell is the coordinates of the bottom left corner of each grid cell. An identifier in accordance with national conventions (consecutive numbering) has also been produced for each grid cell. The Grid net for statistics 5 km x 5 km is the area division used in the production of statistics by 5 km x 5 km grid cells. For utilizing grid data auxiliary table of regional classifications are available: https://www.stat.fi/org/avoindata/paikkatietoaineistot/tilastoruudukko_5km_en.html. The general Terms of Use must be observed when using the data: https://tilastokeskus.fi/org/lainsaadanto/copyright_en.html. In addition to the national version, an INSPIRE information product is also available from the data.
-
This assessment was part of project Baltic ForBio funded by the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme (https://www.slu.se/en/departments/forest-economics/forskning/research-projects/baltic-forbio/). The project was carried out in 2017-2020. The harvesting potentials in Finland were calculated for the following assortments: • Stemwood for energy from thinnings, pine • Stemwood for energy from thinnings, spruce • Stemwood for energy from thinnings, broadleaved • Stemwood for energy from thinnings (smaller than pulpwood-sized trees), pine • Stemwood for energy from thinnings (smaller than pulpwood-sized trees), spruce • Stemwood for energy from thinnings (smaller than pulpwood-sized trees), broadleaved • Logging residues, pine • Logging residues, spruce • Logging residues, deciduos • Stumps, pine • Stumps, spruce. 1.1 Decision support system used in assessment Regional energywood potentials were calculated with MELA forest planning tool (Siitonen et al. 1996; Hirvelä et al. 2017). 1.2 References and further reading Anttila P., Muinonen E., Laitila J. 2013. Nostoalueen kannoista jää viidennes maahan. [One fifth of the stumps on a stump harvesting area stays in the ground]. BioEnergia 3: 10–11. Anttila P., Nivala V., Salminen O., Hurskainen M., Kärki J., Lindroos T.J. & Asikainen A. 2018. Re-gional balance of forest chip supply and demand in Finland in 2030. Silva Fennica vol. 52 no. 2 article id 9902. 20 p. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.9902 Hakkila, P. 1978. Pienpuun korjuu polttoaineeksi. Summary: Harvesting small-sized wood for fuel. Folia Forestalia 342. 38 p. Hirvelä, H., Härkönen, K., Lempinen, R., Salminen, O. 2017. MELA2016 Reference Manual. Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). 547 p. Hynynen, J., Ojansuu, R., Hökkä, H., Siipilehto, J., Salminen, H. & Haapala, P. 2002. Models for predicting stand development in MELA System. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 835. 116 p. Koistinen A., Luiro J., Vanhatalo K. 2016. Metsänhoidon suositukset energiapuun korjuuseen, työopas. [Guidelines for sustainable harvesting of energy wood]. Metsäkustannus Oy, Helsinki. ISBN 978-952-5632-35-4. 74 p. Mäkisara, K., Katila, M., Peräsaari, J. 2019: The Multi-Source National Forest Inventory of Finland - methods and results 2015. Muinonen E., Anttila P., Heinonen J., Mustonen J. 2013. Estimating the bioenergy potential of forest chips from final fellings in Central Finland based on biomass maps and spatially explicit constraints. Silva Fennica 47(4) article 1022. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1022. Natural Resources Institute Finland. 2019. Industrial roundwood removals by region. Available at: http://stat.luke.fi/en/industrial-roundwood-removals-by-region. Accessed 22 Nov 2019. Ruotsalainen, M. 2007. Hyvän metsänhoidon suositukset turvemaille. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapio julkaisusarja 26. Metsäkustannus Oy, Helsinki. 51 p. ISBN 978-952-5694-16-1, ISSN 1239-6117. Siitonen M, Härkönen K, Hirvelä H, Jämsä J, Kilpeläinen H, Salminen O et al. 1996. MELA Handbook. 622. 951-40-1543-6. Äijälä, O., Kuusinen, M. & Koistinen, A. (eds.). 2010. Hyvän metsänhoidon suositukset: energiapuun korjuu ja kasvatus. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapion julkaisusarja 30. 56 p. ISBN 978-952-5694-59-8, ISSN 1239-6117. Äijälä, O., Koistinen, A., Sved, J., Vanhatalo, K. & Väisänen, P. (eds). 2014. Metsänhoidon suositukset. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapion julkaisuja. 180 p. ISBN 978-952-6612-32-4. 2. Output considered in assessment Valid for scenario: Maximum sustained removal Main output ☒Small-diameter trees ☒Stemwood for energy ☒Logging residues ☒Stumps ☐Bark ☐Pulpwood ☐Saw logs Additional information Stemwood for energy from thinnings. Part of this potential consists of trees smaller than pulpwood size. This part is reported as Stemwood for energy from thinnings (smaller than pulpwood-sized trees). Forecast period for the biomass supply assessment Start year: 2016 End year: 2045 Results presented for period 2026-2035 3. Description of scenarios included in the assessments Maximum sustained removal The maximum sustained removal is defined by maximizing the net present value with 4% discount rate subject to non-declining periodic total roundwood removals, energy wood removals and net incomes, further the saw log removals have to remain at least at the level of the first period. There are no sustainability constraints concerning tree species, cutting methods, age classes or the growth/drain -ratio in order to efficiently utilize the dynamics of forest structure. Energy wood removal can consist of stems, cutting residues, stumps and roots. According to the scenario the total annual harvesting potential of industrial roundwood is 79 mill. m3 (over bark) for period 2026-2035. In 2018 removals of industrial roundwood in Finland totaled 68.9 mill. m3 (Natural Resources… 2019). 4. Forest data characteristics Level of detail on forest description ☒High ☐Medium ☐Low NFI data with many and detailed variables down to tree parts. Sample plot based ☒Yes ☐No NFI sample plot data from 2014-2018. Stand based ☐Yes ☒No Grid based ☒Yes ☐No Multi-Source NFI data from 2017 (Mäkisara et al. 2019) utilized when distributing regional potentials to 1 km2 resolution. 5. Forest available for wood supply: Total forest area defined as in: FAO. 2012. FRA 2015, Terms and Definitions. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 180. 36 p. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ap862e/ap862e00.pdf. Forest and scrub land 22 812 000 ha Forest land 20 278 000 ha and scrub land 2 534 000 ha Forest area not available for wood supply Forest and scrub land 2 979 000 ha Forest land 1 849 000 ha and scrub land 1 130 000 ha Partly available for wood supply Forest and scrub land 2 553 000 ha (includes in FAWS, below) Forest land 1 149 000 ha and scrub land 1 404 000 ha. Forest Available for wood supply (FAWS) Forest and scrub land 19 833 000 ha Forest land 18 429 000 ha and scrub land 1 404 000 ha In MELA calculations all the scrub land belonging to the FAWS belongs to the category “Partly available for wood supply”, but there are no logging events on scrub land regardless or the category. 6. Temporal allocation of fellings Valid for scenario: Maximum sustained removal Allocation method ☐Optimization based without even flow constraints ☒Optimization based with even flow constraints ☐Rule based with no harvest target ☐Rule based with static harvest target ☐Rule based with dynamic harvest target See item 3 above (max NPV with 4 % discount rate). 7. Forest management Valid for scenario: Maximum sustained removal Representation of forest management ☐Rule based ☒Optimization ☐Implicit Treatments, among of the optimization makes the selections, are based on management guidelines (e.g. Äijälä etc 2014) 7.2 General assumptions on forest management Valid for scenario: Maximum sustained removal ☒Complies with current legal requirements ☐Complies with certification ☒Represents current practices ☐None of the above ☐ No information available Forest management follows science-based guidelines of sustainable forest management (Ruotsalainen 2007, Äijälä et al. 2010, Äijälä et al. 2014). 7.3 Detailed assumptions on natural processes and forest management Valid for scenario: Maximum sustainable removal Natural processes ☒Tree growth ☒Tree decay ☒Tree death ☐Other? Tree-level models (e.g. Hynynen et al., 2002). Silvicultural system ☒Even-aged ☐Uneven-aged Click here to enter text. Regeneration method ☒Artificial ☒Natural Regeneration species ☐Current distribution ☒Changed distribution Optimal distribution may differ from the current one. Genetically improved plant material ☐Yes ☒No Cleaning ☒Yes ☐No Thinning ☒Yes ☐No Fertilization ☐Yes ☒No 7.4 Detailed constraints on biomass supply Volume or area left on site at final felling ☒Yes ☐No 5 m3/ha retained trees are left in final fellings. Final fellings can be carried out only on FAWS with no restrictions for wood supply. Constraints for residues extraction ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A Retention of 30% of logging residues onsite (Koistinen et al. 2016). Dry-matter loss 20% for logging residues, 5% for stemwood. Constraints for stump extraction ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A Retention of 16–18% of stump biomass (Muinonen et al. 2013; Anttila et al. 2013) Dry-matter loss 5%. 8. External factors Valid for scenario: Maximum sustained removal External factors besides forest management having effect on outcomes Economy ☐Yes ☒No Climate change ☐Yes ☒No Calamities ☐Yes ☒No Other external ☐Yes ☒No
-
The EMODnet (European Marine Observation and Data network) Geology project (http://www.emodnet-geology.eu/) collects and harmonizes marine geological data from the European sea areas to support decisionmaking and sustainable marine spatial planning. The partnership includes 39 marine organizations from 30 countries. The partners, mainly from the marine departments of the geological surveys of Europe (through the Association of European Geological Surveys- EuroGeoSurveys), have assembled marine geological information at a scale of 1:1 000 000 from all European sea areas (e.g. the White Sea, Baltic Sea, Barents Sea, the Iberian Coast, and the Mediterranean Sea within EU waters). This data includes the EMODnet seabed substrate map at a scale of 1:1 000 000 from the European marine areas. Traditionally, European countries have conducted their marine geological surveys according to their own national standards and classified substrates on the grounds of their national classification schemes. These national classifications are harmonized into a shared EMODnet schema using Folk's sediment triangle with a hierarchy of 16, 7 and 5 substrate classes. The data describes the seabed substrate from the uppermost 30 cm of the sediment column. In cases, the data has been generalized into a target scale (1:1 000 000). The smallest cartographic unit within the data is 4 km2. Further information about the EMODnetGeology project is available on the portal (http://www.emodnet-geology.eu/).
-
The EMODnet (European Marine Observation and Data network) Geology project collects and harmonizes marine geological data from the European sea areas to support decision making and sustainable marine spatial planning. The partnership includes 39 marine organizations from 30 countries. The partners, mainly from the marine departments of the geological surveys of Europe (through the Association of European Geological Surveys-EuroGeoSurveys), have assembled marine geological information at various scales from all European sea areas (e.g. the White Sea, Baltic Sea, Barents Sea, the Iberian Coast, and the Mediterranean Sea within EU waters). This dataset includes EMODnet seabed substrate maps at a scale of 1:45 000 from the European marine areas. Traditionally, European countries have conducted their marine geological surveys according to their own national standards and classified substrates on the grounds of their national classification schemes. These national classifications are harmonised into a shared EMODnet schema using Folk's sediment triangle with a hierarchy of 16, 7 and 5 substrate classes. The data describes the seabed substrate from the uppermost 30 cm of the sediment column. Further information about the EMODnet Geology project is available on the portal (http://www.emodnet-geology.eu/).
-
The EMODnet (European Marine Observation and Data network) Geology project collects and harmonizes marine geological data from the European sea areas to support decision making and sustainable marine spatial planning. The partnership includes 39 marine organizations from 30 countries. The partners, mainly from the marine departments of the geological surveys of Europe (through the Association of European Geological Surveys-EuroGeoSurveys), have assembled marine geological information at various scales from all European sea areas (e.g. the White Sea, Baltic Sea, Barents Sea, the Iberian Coast, and the Mediterranean Sea within EU waters). This dataset includes EMODnet seabed substrate maps at a scale of 1:5 000 from the European marine areas. Traditionally, European countries have conducted their marine geological surveys according to their own national standards and classified substrates on the grounds of their national classification schemes. These national classifications are harmonised into a shared EMODnet schema using Folk's sediment triangle with a hierarchy of 16, 7 and 5 substrate classes. The data describes the seabed substrate from the uppermost 30 cm of the sediment column. Further information about the EMODnet Geology project is available on the portal (http://www.emodnet-geology.eu/).
-
This dataset contains the ship accidents in the Baltic Sea during the period 1989 to end of 2023. It is constructed from the annual data collected by HELCOM Contracting Parties on ship accidents in the Baltic Sea and starting from 2019 from EMSA EMCIP Database extraction (for those Contracting Parties that are member of the EU). The accident data has been compiled by the HELCOM Secretariat and EMSA. According to the decision of the HELCOM SEA 2/2001 shipping accident data compilation will include only so-called conventional ships according to the Regulation 5, Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 - any oil tanker of 150 GT and above and any other ships of 400 GT and above which are engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties to the Convention. According to the agreed procedure all accidents (including but not limited to grounding, collision with other vessel or contact with fixed structures (offshore installations, wrecks, etc.), disabled vessel (e.g. machinery and/or structure failure), fire, explosions, etc.), which took place in territorial seas or EEZ of the Contracting Party irrespectively if there was pollution or not, are reported. The dataset contains the following information: Unique_ID = An unique identifier consisting of 4 digit running number and the year of the accident Country Year Date = Date (dd/mm/yyyy) Time = Time of the accident (hh:mm) Location = Location of the accident (open sea / port / port approach, from 2019 -> open sea / port) Acc_Type = Type of accident Colli_Type = Type of collision / contact (with vessel / object) Acc_Detail = More information on the accident CauseDetai = Details on the accident cause Assistance = Assistance after the accident Offence = Offence against Rule Damage = Damage to the ship HumanEleme = Occurrence / Reason of human error IceCondit = Ice conditions CrewIceTra = Crew trained for ice conditions Pollution = Pollution (Yes/No) Pollu_m3 = Pollution in m3 Pollu_t = Pollution in tonnes Pollu_Type = Type of pollution RespAction = Response actions after the accident Cargo_Type = Type of cargo Ship1_Name = Ship 1 identification (Not published after 2018) Sh1_Categ = Ship 1 type (according to AIS category) Sh1_Type = Ship 1 more detail ship type category Sh1_Hull = Ship 1 hull construction Sh1Size_gt = Ship 1 GT Sh1Sizedwt = Ship 1 DWT Sh1Draug_m = Ship 1 draught in meters / category Cause_Sh1 = Cause of accidents from ship 1 Pilot_Sh1 = Presence of pilot on ship 1 Ship2_Name = Ship 2 identification (Not published after 2018) Sh2_Categ = Ship 2 type (according to AIS category) Sh2_Type = Ship 2 more detail ship type category Sh2_Hull = Ship 2 hull construction Sh2Size_gt = Ship 2 GT Sh2Sizedwt = Ship 2 DWT Sh2Draug_m = Ship 2 draught in meters / category Cause_Sh2 = Cause of accidents from ship 2 Pilot_Sh2 = Presence of pilot on ship 2 Add_Info = Additional information Latitude = Latitude (decimal degrees) Longitude = Longitude (decimal degrees) For more information about shipping accidents in the Baltic Sea, see the HELCOM annual reports: https://helcom.fi/helcom-at-work/publications/ https://helcom.fi/media/publications/HELCOM-report-on-Shipping-accidents-in-the-Baltic-Sea-2019-211207-FINAL.pdf
-
This dataset represents the Integrated biodiversity status assessment for benthic habitats using the BEAT tool. Status is shown in five categories based on the integrated assessment scores obtained in the tool. Biological Quality Ratios (BQR) above 0.6 correspond to good status. The assessment in open sea areas was based on the core indicators ‘State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community’ and ‘Oxygen debt’. Coastal areas were assessed by national indicators, and may hence not be directly comparable with each other. This dataset displays the result of the integrated biodiverity status in HELCOM Assessment unit Scale 4 (Division of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins and further division into coastal and off-shore areas and division of the coastal areas by WFD water types or water bodies). Attribute information: "BQR" = Biological Quality Ratio "Confidence" = Confidence of the assessment "HELCOM_ID" = id of the HELCOM assessment unit "country" = name of the country / opensea "level_2" = HELCOM sub-basins (name of the scale 2 assessment unit) "Name" = Name of the coastal assessment unit on scale 4 "AULEVEL" = scale of the assessment units "type_descr" = Name of the HELCOM scale 4 assessment unit "SAUID" = ID number for the spatial assessment unit "EcosystemC" = Ecosystem component assessed "Confiden_1" = Confidence of the assessment (0-1, higher values mean higher confidence) "Total_numb" = Number of indicators used in assessment "Area_km2" = Area of assessment unit (km2) "Confiden_1" = Confidence level of the assessment (scores < 0.5 = low, 0.5 - 0.75 = intermediate, > 0.75 = high) "STATUS" = Integrated status category (0-0.2 = not good (lowest score), 0.2-0.4 = not good (lower score), 0.4-0.6 = not good (low score), 0.6-0.8 = good (high score), 0.8-1.0 = good (highest score))