FIN Järvien vesikasvillisuusvyöhykettä kuvaava aineisto 1971 suomalaisesta järvivesimuodostumasta. Aineisto on polygonivektorimuodossa, jossa yksittäisen järven vesikasvivyöhyke esitetään moniosaisena polygonina. Vesikasvillisuusvyöhyke koostuu ilmakuvilta erottuvasta vedenpinnan yläpuolisesta (ilmaversoinen ja kelluslehtinen) ja aivan vedenpinnan tasolle yltävästä uposlehtisestä kasvillisuudesta. Vesikasvillisuusvyöhykkeen ja järven 0–3 metrin syvyysvyöhykkeen perusteella järville on laskettu kasvittumisaste-niminen tunnusluku, jota käytetään järvien ekologisen tilan arvioinnissa kuvaamaan rehevöitymisen aiheuttamaa kasvillisuuden runsastumista. Vesikasvillisuusvyöhyke on analysoitu Picterra-yrityksen koneoppimismalleilla Maanmittauslaitoksen hallinnoimista väri-infra- eli vääräväriortokuvista vuosilta 2012-2023. Vyöhykkeen analysointi on rajattu 1.7.–10.9. otettuihin ortokuviin. Lisäksi analysointi on rajattu seuraaviin vesienhoidon suunnittelun 3. suunnittelukaudella määritettyihin järvityyppeihin: • Pienet humusjärvet • Keskikokoiset humusjärvet • Runsashumuksiset järvet • Matalat humusjärvet • Matalat runsashumuksiset järvet Aineisto sisältää 698 järvivesimuodostumalta ilmakuvatulkinnan useammalta vuodelta. Havaittu kasvittumisaste on laskettu niille 977 järvivesimuodostumalle, joilta oli saatavissa tieto 0–3 metrin syvyysvyöhykkeestä. Aineistoon on jätetty järviä ilman syvyysaineistoa ja siten kasvittumisasteen laskentaa siinä tarkoituksessa, jotta aineistoa voidaan tarvittaessa hyödyntää muuhunkin kuin kasvittumisaste-muuttujaan perustuvaan tila-arviointiin. Aineistolle on tehty silmämääräinen tarkastus virheellisten havaintojen poistamiseksi. Aineisto voi silti sisältää väärintulkintoja. Kasvittumisasteen luontaisen vaihtelun mallintamisesta saadut tunnusluvut, kuten odotetut kasvittumisasteet ja kasvittumisasteeseen perustuva ekologinen tilaluokka, ovat ympäristöhallinnon asiantuntijoiden katseltavissa Pisara-järjestelmässä. Käyttötarkoitus: Ympäristöhallinnon tehtävien tueksi vesien tilan arviointiin. Järvien ekologisen tilan arviointia tekevät asiantuntijat käyttävät paikkatietoaineistoa ilmakuvatulkinnan laadun arvioimiseen yksittäisellä järvellä. Asiasanat: kaukokartoitus, ilmakuvat, vesikasvillisuus, seuranta, ekologinen tila Lisätietoja: https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/Jarvien_vesikasvillisuusvyohykkeet.pdf https://vesi.fi/aineistopankki/koneoppimispohjaiseen-ilmakuvatulkintaan-perustuva-jarvien-vesikasvillisuuden-tilanarviointi/ ENG This data describes lake macrophyte zone on 1971 Finnish lake waterbodies. The spatial features are represented as multi-part polygons. The attributes are in Finnish. The zone represents emergent and floating-leaved vegetation plus submerged vegetation just above the surface of water. Together with lake bathymetric data, the percentage of vegetated littoral (PVL) was calculated. The PVL is applied in ecological status assessment. Lake macrophyte zone was detected from color-infrared aerial orthophotos administered by the National Land Survey of Finland. The detections were performed with the help of a custom machine learning model trained using Picterra. The detections were applied to orthophotos in 2012-2013 which were filmed between 1st of July and 10th of September. The detections were limited to humic and humic-rich lake waterbodies. There are detections from multiple years for 698 lake waterbodies. Observed PVL were calculated on 977 lake waterbodies which have bathymetric data to identify the 0 to 3 meters deep littoral zone. To potentially utilize the data for more than just the PVL-based approach, the data also have detections on waterbodies without bathymetric data and therefore observed PVL. A visual inspection of the data has been performed to remove erroneous detections. The data may still contain misinterpretations. Purpose of use: Support of environmental administration in ecological status assessment. More information: https://geoportal.ymparisto.fi/meta/julkinen/dokumentit/Jarvien_vesikasvillisuusvyohykkeet.pdf https://vesi.fi/aineistopankki/koneoppimispohjaiseen-ilmakuvatulkintaan-perustuva-jarvien-vesikasvillisuuden-tilanarviointi/

KUVAUS: Aineisto sisältää raitiotien katusuunnitelmien reitit Tampereen alueelta sekä linkkejä suunnitelmapiirustuksiin. KATTAVUUS: Kaikille käyttäjille Oskari-karttapalvelussa. PÄIVITYS: Aineistoa päivitetään tarpeen mukaan (ylläpito jatkuvaa). YLLÄPITOSOVELLUS: PostgreSQL-tietokanta ja QGIS-ohjelmisto. KOORDINAATTIJÄRJESTELMÄ: Aineisto tallennetaan ETRS-GK24FIN (EPSG:3878) tasokoordinaattijärjestelmässä. GEOMETRIA: vektori (viiva) SAATAVUUS: Aineisto on saatavilla WFS-rajapinnalta Tampereen kaupungin sisäiseen käyttöön. JULKISUUS: Kaikille käyttäjille Oskari-karttapalvelussa. AINEISTOSTA VASTAAVA TAHO: Tampereen kaupunki, Kuntatekniikan suunnittelu

Division into administrative areas (raster) is a dataset depicting the municipal Division of Finland. The dataset Municipal Division is produced in scales 1:10,000, 1:100,000, 1:250,000, 1:1,000,000 and 1:4,500,000. The data included in the dataset in scale 1:10,000 are taken from the Cadastre. Regarding other scales, municipal boundaries have been generalised to suit the scale in question. Division into administrative areas products in raster format include municipal boundaries only. The product is a part of the open data of the National Land Survey.

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/).

Potential cumulative impacts on benthic habitats is based on the same method than <a href="http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/9477be37-94a9-4201-824a-f079bc27d097" target="_blank">Baltic Sea Impact Index</a>, but is focused on physical pressures and benthic habitats. The dataset was created based on separate analysis for potential cumulative impacts on only the benthic habitats, as these are particularly affected by physical pressures. In this case the evaluation was based on pressure layers representing <a href="http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/ea0ef0fa-0517-40a9-866a-ce22b8948c88" target="_blank">physical loss</a> and <a href="http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/05e325f3-bc30-44a0-8f0b-995464011c82" target="_blank">physical disturbance</a>, combined with information on the distribution of eight broad benthic habitat types and five habitat-forming species (<a href="http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/363cb353-46da-43f4-9906-7324738fe2c3" target="_blank">Furcellaria lumbricalis</a>, <a href="http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/f9cc7b2c-4080-4b19-8c38-cac87955cb91" target="_blank">Mytilus edulis</a>, <a href="http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/264ed572-403c-43bd-9707-345de8b9503c" target="_blank"> Fucus sp.</a>, <a href="http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/822ddece-d96a-4036-9ad8-c4b599776eca" target="_blank">Charophytes</a> and <a href="http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/ca327bb1-d3cb-46c2-8316-f5f62f889090" target="_blank">Zostera marina</a>). The potential cumulative impacts has been estimated based on currently best available data, but spatial and temporal gaps may occur in underlying datasets. 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.

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))

This dataset represents the integrated assessment of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea in 2011-2016, assessed using the CHASE tool (https://github.com/helcomsecretariat/CHASE-integration-tool). The integration is based on hazardous substances core indicators covering concentrations of hazardous substances. This dataset displays the result of the assessment in HELCOM Assessment unit Level 3 (Division of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins and further division into coastal and offshore areas). Attribute information: "HELCOM_ID" = ID of the HELCOM scale 3 assessment unit "country" = Country/ opensea "level_3" = Name of the HELCOM scale 3 assessment unit "area_km2 = Area of the HELCOM scale 3 assessment unit "AULEVEL" = Scale of the assessment units "coastal" = Code of scale 3 HELCOM assessment unit "Input" = Contamination ratio of the assessment unit (Higher score indicates higher contamination) "Confidence" = Confidence of the assessment (Low/ Moderate/ High/ Not assessed) "Status" = Status value for the assessment (= 1.0: Low contamination score, > 1.0: High contaminantion score)

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 Finnish Food Authority - INSPIRE WMS is a WMS interface service that provides access to land cover and land use map layers. The service is based on data from the Integrated Aid Control and Management System (IACS) and the Land Parcel Information System (LPIS). The data are managed by the Food Authority. The service is free of charge and does not require authentication.

The raw materials of forest chips in Biomass Atlas are small-diameter trees from first thinning fellings and logging residues and stumps from final fellings. The harvesting potential consists of biomass that would be available after technical and economic constraints. Such constraints include, e.g., minimum removal of energywood per hectare, site fertility and recovery rate. Note that the techno-economic potential is usually higher than the actual availability, which depends on forest owners’ willingness to sell and competitive situation. The harvesting potentials were estimated using the sample plots of the 11th and 12th national forest inventory (NFI11 and NFI12) measured in the years 2013–2017. First, a large number of sound and sustainable management schedules for five consecutive ten-year periods were simulated for each sample plot using a large-scale Finnish forest planning system known as MELA (Siitonen et al. 1996; Hirvelä et al. 2017). MELA simulations consisted of natural processes and human actions. The ingrowth, growth, and mortality of trees were predicted based on a set of distance-independent tree-level statistical models (e.g. Hynynen et al. 2002) included in MELA and the simulation of the stand (sample plot)-level management actions was based on the current Finnish silvicultural guidelines (Äijälä et al. 2014) and the guidelines for harvesting of energy wood (Koistinen et al. 2016). Future potentials were assumed to materialize when the industrial roundwood fellings followed the level of maximum sustainable removals (80.7 mill. m3 in this calculation). The maximum sustainable removals were defined such that the net present value calculated with a 4% discount rate was maximized subject to non-declining periodic industrial roundwood and energy wood removals and net incomes, and subject to the saw log removal remaining at least at the level of the first period. There were no constraints concerning tree species selection, cutting methods, age classes, or the growth/drain ratio in order to efficiently utilize the dynamics of forest structure. The potential for energywood from first thinnings was calculated separately for all the wood from first thinnings (Small-diameter trees from first thinnings) and for material that does not fulfill the size-requirements for pulpwood (Small-diameter trees from first thinnings, smaller than pulpwood). The minimum top diameter of pulpwood in the calculation was 6.3 cm for pine (Pinus sylvestris) and 6.5 cm for spruce (Picea abies) and broadleaved species (mainly Betula pendula, B. pubescens, Populus tremula, Alnus incana, A. glutinosa and Salix spp.). The minimum length of a pulpwood log was assumed at 2.0 m. The potentials do not include branches. The potentials for logging residues and stumps were calculated as follows: The biomass removals of clear fellings were obtained from MELA. According to harvesting guidelines for energywood (Koistinen et al. 2016) mineral soils classified as sub-xeric (or weaker) and peatlands with corresponding low nutrient levels were left out from the potentials. Finally, technical recovery rates were applied (70% for logging residues and 82-84% for stumps) (Koistinen et al. 2016; Muinonen et al. 2013) The techno-economical harvesting potentials were first calculated for nineteen Finnish regions and then distributed on a raster grid at 1 km × 1 km resolution by weighting with Multi-Source NFI biomasses as described by Anttila et al. (2018). The potentials represent time period 2025-2034 and are presented as average annual potentials in solid cubic metres over bark. References Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, Väisänen P. 2014. Metsänhoidon suositukset. [Guidelines for sustainable forest management]. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapion julkaisuja. Anttila P., Nivala V., Salminen O., Hurskainen M., Kärki J., Lindroos T.J. & Asikainen A. 2018. Regional balance of forest chip supply and demand in Finland in 2030. Silva Fennica vol. 52 no. 2 article id 9902. 20 s. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.9902 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, Salminen H, Siipilehto J, Haapala P. 2002. Models for predicting the stand development – description of biological processes in MELA system. The Finnish Forest Research Institute Research Papers. 835. Koistinen A, Luiro J, Vanhatalo K. 2016. Metsänhoidon suositukset energiapuun korjuuseen, työopas. [Guidelines for sustainable harvesting of energy wood]. Tapion julkaisuja. 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. Siitonen M, Härkönen K, Hirvelä H, Jämsä J, Kilpeläinen H, Salminen O et al. 1996. MELA Handbook. 622. 951-40-1543-6.