1052 record(s)
Type of resources
Available actions
Contact for the resource
Provided by
Representation types
Update frequencies
From 1 - 10 / 1052
  • The 1:250 000 data on the soft and hard areas of the seabed supplements the seabed substrate data produced by the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) for areas for which actual survey data is unavailable. The data covers two categories; hard and soft seabed areas. The substrate types categorised as hard seabed areas cover types ranging from gravel to boulders and exposed rock, and the substrate types for soft seabed areas cover types from silt to sand. The model is based on the marine geological survey data of GTK, the substrate observations made by the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) and Metsähallitus, and on the environment variable data produced by the Finnish Inventory Programme for the Underwater Marine Environment, VELMU, particularly on depth and seabed openness models. The data has undergone statistical evaluation and the ultimate model is based on expert estimates and modelling. At its most precise, the data is at a scale of 1:250 000 and the areas with a size less than 0.3 square kilometres have been removed. The substrate type information pertaining to restricted areas has been removed from the final data. A permit (AK15246) for publishing data with a similar scale, i.e. the EMODnet data, was received from the Defence Command of the Finnish Defence Forces on 28 July 2014.

  • This dataset contains points of information describing the location and size of other discharges than illegal oil discharges observed during aerial surveillance flights by HELCOM Contracting Parties 2014-2017. Further information about illegal discharges of oil in the Baltic Sea area and HELCOM aerial surveillance activities can be found at http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/maritime/illegal-spills/ The dataset contains the following information: Country Year Spill_ID= Spill ID FlightType= The type of flight the detection was made during: National = "N", CEPCO = "C", Super CEPCO = "S" Date= The date of the detection (dd.mm.yyyy) Time_UTC= The time of the detection (hh:mm) Wind_speed= The wind speed at the time of the detection (m/s) Wind_direc= The wind direction at the time of the detection (degrees) Latitude= The latitude of the detection (decimal degrees) Longitude= The longitude of the detection (decimal degrees) Length__km= The length of the detection (km) Width__km= The width of the detection (km) Area__km2_= The area of the detection (km2) Spill_cat= The category of the detection: other substance = "OS", unknown substance = "UNKNOWN" EstimVol_m= Estimated volume of the detection (m3) Polluter= Polluter (rig, ship, other, unknown) Category= Category of the detection: 100m3 = "5" Casefile= The name of the casefile the detection refers to Remarks= Any additional information

  • Categories  

    Lack of spatial soil data in digital form has been a primary obstacle in establishing European policies on land use and environmental protection. Abundant data on soil characteristics exist in Finland but have been scattered among various sources, making it difficult for authorities to make country-wide presentations and predictions.The objective of the project was to create georeferenced soil map and database according to the instructions of the European Soil Bureau using data from existing databases and collecting some new data. The basis of the work was a geological map of quaternary deposits, which describes the soil at a depth of 1 metrem (parent material) according to the Finnish classification based on the concentration of organic matter and the texture of mineral material. Primary research topics included generalization methodology of soil polygons with GIS technology, calculation of soil characteristics needed in the database and computerizing the existing non-digital soil information. It was proved that aerial geophysics can be used for separation of shallow peats from deep peat soils and muddy soils and other wet areas can be identified. Soil names according to the FAO/Unesco system and the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB-2014) were derived from the soil names of the Finnish soil classification system and geophysical data. Soilscape (Soil Mapping Units) of Finland with WRB-2014 soil classification, intented to be used in European scale e.g to delineate risk areas mentioned in soil framework directive proposal.

  • Categories  

    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 1st thinnings, pine • Stemwood for energy from 1st thinnings, spruce • Stemwood for energy from 1st thinnings, broadleaved • Stemwood for energy from 1st thinnings (smaller than pulpwood-sized trees), pine • Stemwood for energy from 1st thinnings (smaller than pulpwood-sized trees), spruce • Stemwood for energy from 1st 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 sustainable removal Main output ☒Small-diameter trees ☒Stemwood for energy ☒Logging residues ☒Stumps ☐Bark ☐Pulpwood ☐Saw logs Additional information Stemwood for energy from 1st thinnings. Part of this potential consists of trees smaller than pulpwood size. This part is reported as Small-diameter trees. Forecast period for the biomass supply assessment Start year: 2015 End year: 2044 Results presented for period 2025-2034 3. Description of scenarios included in the assessments Maximum sustainable removal The maximum sustainable 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 80.7 mill. m3 (over bark) for period 2025-2034. 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 2013-2017. Stand based ☐Yes ☒No Grid based ☒Yes ☐No Multi-Source NFI data from 2015 (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 sustainable 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 sustainable 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 sustainable 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) Constraints for stump extraction ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A Retention of 16–18% of stump biomass (Muinonen et al. 2013; Anttila et al. 2013) 8. External factors Valid for scenario: Maximum sustainable 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 marine habitat type data concerns the modelling work carried out within the Finnish Inventory Programme for the Underwater Marine Environment (VELMU) in spring 2015. The task was done in cooperation between the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) and Åbo Academi University (ÅA). The work included the modelling of the marine habitats included in the Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive: reefs (1170) and sandbanks, which are slightly covered by sea water all the time (1110). The aforementioned marine habitat types are specified on the basis of seabed substrate type and topographic form and they can overlap one another. The objective was to produce comprehensive maps of the occurrences of reefs and sandbanks throughout the entire marine area of Finland based on the best data available. The criteria to determine the marine habitats were discussed with the responsible bodies and the instructions (version 5.1), which include more precise criteria for determining marine habitat types than the Natura 2000 Habitats Manual (Airaksinen & Karttunen 2001), for a Natura 2000 inventory were utilised. On the basis of different criteria and test analyses, a decision was made to model the following entireties: - Potential rocky reefs - detail-scale sites that are likely to have reef occurrences. - Potential rocky reef environments - larger sites that are likely to have reef occurrences. - Potential sandbanks - detail-scale sites that are likely to have sandbank occurrences. - Potential sandbank environments - larger sites that are likely to have sandbank occurrences. The data concerning the marine habitats of restricted areas has been removed.

  • Categories  

    Field biomass sidestreams GIS data describes the maximum harvestable sidestream potential based on current tillage. Sidestreams has been calculated by crop statistics, cultivation area, solid content and harvest index. Harvest index describes the part of the plant that is utilized as a crop. Rest of the plant is considered sidestream. In many cases the maximum sidestream cannot be necessarily utilized as whole, because of technical and economical constraints for harvest. Part of the sidestream is also wise to plough in to field to maintain its fertility. Field crop data is conducted from Luke's crop production statistics. The crop statistics in ELY centre level is divided into the Biomass Atlas grid weighting by the crop area of that certain plant. Crop area is from IACS-register, used to manage subsidies in agriculture. Farmers report their cultivation plans there every spring. Crop area and amount are from same year, usually previous year.

  • Categories  

    Lorry parking areas at E18 road in Finland. Data is in Esri shapefiles, in ETRS-TM35FIN coordinates. Data is maintained and provided by FTA (Finnish Transport Agency).

  • Categories  

    The Rock Geochemical Database of Finland data set describes the concentrations of major and trace elements in the bedrock of Finland. In all, 6544 samples were analysed for the total and partial concentrations of 57 elements using several different methods (XRF, ICP-MS, ICP-AES, GFAAS). The samples were taken during 1990-1995 with a mini-drill from rock that was as unaltered as possible. The sampling density varies between one sample per 30 km2 and one sample per 120 km2. The chemical analyses of the data were performed during 1992-2001. The reproducibility of the analytical results and the analytical drift were estimated using 375 duplicate sample pairs. The lowest reliable concentration was determined for each element and analytical method. In addition to the chemical concentrations, the database contains spatial data and several geological attributes for each sample. The data set and its manual were published in 2007 and they are available via the web site of the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK).

  • 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))