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))

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

The technical harvesting potential of logging residues and stumps from final fellings can be defined as the maximum potential procurement volume of these available from the Finnish forests based on the prevailing guidelines for harvesting of energy wood. The potentials of logging residues and stumps have been calculated for fifteen NUTS3-based Finnish regions covering the whole country (Koljonen et al. 2017). The 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). Final fellings consisted of clear cutting, seed tree cutting, and shelter-wood cutting, but only the clear-cutting areas were utilized for energy wood harvesting. As both logging residues and stumps are byproducts of roundwood removals, the technical potentials of chips have to be linked with removals of industrial roundwood. Future potentials were assumed to materialize when the industrial roundwood fellings followed the level of maximum sustainable removals. 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 felling behaviour of the forest owners was not taken into account either. For the present situation in 2015, the removal of industrial roundwood was assumed to be the same as the average level in 2008–2012. Fourth, the technical harvesting potentials were derived by retention of 30% of the logging residues onsite (Koistinen et al. 2016) and respectively by retention of 16–18% of stump biomass (Muinonen et al. 2013). Next, the regional potentials were allocated to municipalities proportionally to their share of mature forests (MetINFO 2014). Subsequently, the municipality-level potentials were spread evenly 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. Here, 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). 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. 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 Fenn 47. 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.

Agricultural land is the area of arable land (AL), permanent grassland (PG) and permanent crops (PC). Arable land is land cultivated for crop production or fallow land available for cultivation. Permanent grassland Permanent grassland is the area used to grow grasses or other herbaceous forage crops that have been on the same site for more than 5 years, either by self-regulation or by sowing. Permanent grassland may be arable land or natural pasture and meadow. Permanent grassland may not contain more than 50 trees per hectare in a scattered pattern. Trees are considered to be single- or multi-trunked trees and woody shrubs of at least four metres in height. Shrubs of all sizes are also considered as trees. Trees in windbreaks are not counted in the tree count. Deciduous bushes suitable for feeding farm animals and deciduous tree seedlings may be grown on the area if they cover less than half of the area of the eligible plot. More than half (50 %) of the area of the plot must be grass and forage. This requirement also applies to parcels of permanent grassland with trees or deciduous shrubs or both. Permanent crops Permanent crops are crops which are not part of the crop rotation, which are grown for at least 5 years and which produce a repeated harvest. These include fruit trees, berry bushes and ornamental plants. More information: https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/globalassets/tuet/maatalous/oppaat/hakuoppaat/peltotukiopas/maatalousmaa-2024.pdf