The technical harvesting potential of small-diameter trees can be defined as the maximum potential procurement volume of small-diameter trees available from the Finnish forests based on the prevailing guidelines for harvesting of energy wood. The potentials of small-diameter trees from early thinnings have been calculated for fifteen NUTS3-based Finnish regions covering the whole country (Koljonen et al. 2017). To begin with the estimation of the region-level potentials, technical harvesting potentials were estimated using the sample plots of the eleventh national forest inventory (NFI11) measured in the years 2009–2013. 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; Redsven et al. 2013). 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). Simulated management actions for the small-tree fraction consisted of thinnings that fulfilled the following stand criteria: • mean diameter at breast height ≥ 8 cm • number of stems ≥ 1500 ha-1 • mean height < 10.5 m (in Lapland) or mean height < 12.5 m (elsewhere). Energy wood was harvested as delimbed (i.e. including the stem only) in spruce-dominated stands and peatlands and as whole trees (i.e. including stem and branches) elsewhere. When harvested as whole trees, a total of 30% of the original crown biomass was left onsite (Koistinen et al. 2016). Energy wood thinnings could be integrated with roundwood logging or carried out independently. Second, the technical energy wood potential of small trees was operationalized in MELA by maximizing the removal of thinnings in the first period. In this way, it was possible to pick out all small tree fellings simulated in the first period despite, for example, the profitability of the operation. However, a single logging event was rejected if the energy wood removal was lower than 25 m³ha-1 or the industrial roundwood removal of pine, spruce, or birch exceeded 45 m³ha-1. The potential calculated in this way contained also timber suitable for industrial roundwood. Therefore, two estimates are given: • potential of trees below 10.5 cm in breast-height diameter • potential of trees below 14.5 cm in breast-height diameter. Subsequently, the region-level potentials were spread on a raster grid at 1 km × 1 km resolution. Only grid cells on Forests Available for Wood Supply (FAWS) were considered in this operation. In this study, FAWS was defined as follows: First, forest land was extracted from the Finnish Multi-Source National Forest Inventory (MS-NFI) 2013 data (Mäkisara et al. 2016). Second, restricted areas were excluded from forest land. The restricted areas consisted of nationally protected areas (e.g. nature parks, national parks, protection programme areas) and areas protected by the State Forest Enterprise. In addition, some areas in northernmost Lapland restricted by separate agreements between the State Forest Enterprise and stakeholders were left out from the final data. Furthermore, for small trees, FAWS was further constrained by the stand criteria presented above to represent similar stand conditions for small-tree harvesting as in MELA. Finally, the region-level potentials were distributed to the grid cells by weighting with MS-NFI stem wood biomasses. References Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, Väisänen P (2014) Metsänhoidon suositukset [Guidelines for sustainable forest management]. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapion julkaisuja. 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]. Metsäkustannus Oy, Helsinki. Koljonen T, Soimakallio S, Asikainen A, Lanki T, Anttila P, Hildén M, Honkatukia J, Karvosenoja N, Lehtilä A, Lehtonen H, Lindroos TJ, Regina K, Salminen O, Savolahti M, Siljander R (2017) Energia ja ilmastostrategian vaikutusarviot: Yhteenvetoraportti. [Impact assessments of the Energy and Climate strategy: The summary report.] Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 21/2017. Mäkisara K, Katila M, Peräsaari J, Tomppo E (2016) The Multi-Source National Forest Inventory of Finland – methods and results 2013. Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 10/2016. Redsven V, Hirvelä H, Härkönen K, Salminen O, Siitonen M (2013) MELA2012 Reference Manual. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Siitonen M, Härkönen K, Hirvelä H, Jämsä J, Kilpeläinen H, Salminen O, Teuri M (1996) MELA Handbook. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 622. ISBN 951-40-1543-6.

KUVAUS: Karttatason kohteet ovat peräisin LUMO-asukaskyselystä marraskuulta 2024. Aineisto on kerätty Fiilis-karttakyselyllä (Ilmasto- ja ympäristöpolitiikan yksikkö). Kysely oli osa lumo-ohjelman päivityksen vuorovaikutusprosessia. Vastaajaa pyydettiin merkitsemään kartalle pisteitä tai alueita, joissa on havainnut 1) myönteisiä muutoksia tai 2) kielteisiä muutoksia luonnon monimuotoisuudessa viimeisen neljän vuoden aikana. Kartalle sai myös merkitä pisteitä tai alueita, joissa olisi halukas itse toimimaan luonnon monimuotoisuuden parantamiseksi. Kyselyn vastaajamäärä oli 570 hlö. Kyselyyn pystyi vastaamaan joko suomeksi tai englanniksi. Vastaajien anonyymit taustatiedot on tarvittaessa saatavilla datan yhteyshenkilöltä. KATTAVUUS: Tampere YLLÄPITO: Kyseessä on poikkileikkausaineisto (Aineisto ei päivity). KOORDINAATTIJÄRJESTELMÄ: Aineisto tallennetaan ETRS-GK24 (EPSG:3878) tasokoordinaattijärjestelmässä. GEOMETRIA: vektori (pisteitä ja alueita) SAATAVUUS: Aineisto on katsottavissa kirjautuneille käyttäjille Oskari-karttapalvelussa. AINEISTOSTA VASTAAVA TAHO: Tampereen kaupunki, Ilmasto- ja ympäristöpolitiikan yksikkö

This dataset contains integrated eutrophication status assessment 2011-2016. The assessment is done using the HEAT 3.0 by combining assessment unit-specific results from various indicators by three MSFD criteria groups (C1: Nutrient levels, C2: Direct effect, C3: Indirect effect). The assessment is done on HELCOM Assessment Unit level 4: HELCOM Subbasins with coastal WFD water type or water bodies. The HEAT 3.0 has been applied for open sea assessment units using HELCOM core indicators and for coastal areas using national WFD indicators. In case of Denmark, the WFD results were used directly, displaying different classification as obtained from HEAT. For more information about the methodology, see the State of the Baltic Sea report and HELCOM Eutrophication assessment manual. Attribute information: "HELCOM_ID": ID of the HELCOM Level 4 Assessment unit "Country": Country/ Opensea "level_2": Name of the HELCOM Level 2 Assessment unit "Name": Name of the HELCOM Level 4 Assessment unit "Area_km2": Area of assessment unit "C1_N": MSFD criteria 1, number of indicators used for calculating Eutrophication Ratio (ER) "C1_ER": MSFD Criteria 1, ER "C1_SCORE": MSFD Criteria 1, Confidence of ER "C2_N": MSFD Criteria 2, number of indicators used for calculating ER "C2_ER": MSFD Criteria 2, ER "C2_SCORE": MSFD Criteria 2, Confidence of ER "C3_N": MSFD Criteria 3, number of indicators used for calculating ER "C3_ER": MSFD Criteria 3, ER "C3_SCORE": Criteria 3, Confidence of ER "N": Number of criteria used for calculating overall ER "ER": Overall ER "SCORE": Status confidence "STATUS": Status classification (Good (classes 0-0.5 & 0.5-1.0), Not Good (classes 1.0-1.5, 1.5-2.0 & >2.0), Not assessed) "CONFIDENCE": Final confidence class (< 50% = low, 50-74 % = Moderate, = 75 % = High) "AULEVEL": Level of assessment units

This dataset represents the Integrated biodiversity status assessment for fish used in State of the Baltic Sea – Second HELCOM holistic assessment 2011-2016. Status is shown in five categories based on the integrated assessment scores obtained in the BEAT tool. Biological Quality ratios (BQR) above 0.6 correspond to good status. The assessment is based on core indicators of coastal fish in coastal areas, and on internationally assessed commercial fish in the open sea. The open sea assessment includes fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass as an average over 2011–2016. Open sea results are given by ICES subdivisions, and are not shown where they overlap with coastal areas. Coastal areas results are given in HELCOM Assessment unit Scale 3 (Division of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins and further division into coastal and off-shore areas) Attribute information: "COUNTRY" = name of the country / opensea "Name" = Name of the coastal assessment unit, scale 3 (empty for ICES open sea units) "HELCOM_ID" = ID of the HELCOM scale 3 assessment unit (empty for ICES open sea units) "EcoystemC" = Ecosystem component analyzed "BQR" = Biological Quality Ratio "Conf" = Confidence (0-1, higher values mean higher confidence) "Total_indi" = Number of HELCOM core indicators included (coastal assessment units) "F__of_area = % of area assessed "D1C2" = MSFD descriptor 1 criteria 2 "Number_of" = Number of open sea species included "Confidence" = Confidence of the assessment "BQR_Demer" = Demersal Biological Quality Ratio "F_spec_Deme" = Number of demersal species included "Conf_Demer" = Confidence for demersal species "BQR_Pelagi" = Pelagic Biological Quality Ratio "F_specPela" = Number of pelagic species included "Conf_Pelag" = Confidence for pelagic species "ICES_SD" = ICES Subdivision number "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))

KUVAUS: Karttataso sisältää sekajätteen keräysalueet, jotka tulevat voimaan kuudessa vaiheessa 31.12.2029 mennessä, sekä nykyisen voimassa olevan sekajätteen keräysalueen. PÄIVITYS: Satunnainen (vain tarvittaessa). YLLÄPITOSOVELLUS: Tampereen kaupungin tiedostopalvelin ja PostGIS-tietokanta KOORDINAATTIJÄRJESTELMÄ: Aineisto tallennetaan ETRS-GK24FIN (EPSG:3878) tasokoordinaattijärjestelmässä GEOMETRIA: vektori (alue) SAATAVUUS: Aineisto on tallennettu Postgis-tietokantaan. JULKISUUS: Aineisto on nähtävillä julkisesti kaikille käyttäjille Oskari-karttapalvelussa. TIETOSUOJA: Aineistoon ei liity tietosuojakysymyksiä. AINEISTOSTA VASTAAVA TAHO: Tampereen kaupunki, Alueellinen jätehuoltolautakunta, jatehuoltolautakunta@tampere.fi

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))

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/

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.

The map compiles seabed samples since 1985 onwards. The data includes geographic data and metadata related to each sample, mainly based on the data produced by the Geological Survey of Finland