Potential cumulative impacts on benthic habitats is based on the same method than http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/9477be37-94a9-4201-824a-f079bc27d097, 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 http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/ea0ef0fa-0517-40a9-866a-ce22b8948c88 and http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/05e325f3-bc30-44a0-8f0b-995464011c82, combined with information on the distribution of eight broad benthic habitat types and five habitat-forming species (http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/363cb353-46da-43f4-9906-7324738fe2c3, http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/f9cc7b2c-4080-4b19-8c38-cac87955cb91, http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/264ed572-403c-43bd-9707-345de8b9503c, http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/822ddece-d96a-4036-9ad8-c4b599776eca and http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/ca327bb1-d3cb-46c2-8316-f5f62f889090). 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 http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/cumulative-impacts/ for more info.

The extraction of cod pressure layer is based on two datasets: 1. http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/7a1389b3-382a-487f-8888-ac45c94c5a97 for years 2011-2016 reported per ICES statistical rectangles (tonnes / ICES rectangle). 2. http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/debeafcd-948b-4455-88ae-7a3d1618f5a8 from ICES recreational fisheries reports for 2011-2016, reported per country (only coastal areas included). Landing values were redistributed within each ICES rectangle by the c-square fishing effort data provided by ICES (all gears, 2011-2013). Tonnes / km² were calculated for both data sets and the results were converted to 1 km x 1 km grid cells. The layers were summed together, log-transformed and normalised to produce the final pressure layer on extraction of cod. Please see "lineage" section below for further details on attributes, data source, data processing, etc.

Distribution of Fucus sp. based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Mainly pointwise occurrences of Fucus were submitted, originally gathered in national mapping and monitoring campaigns, or for scientific research purposes. From Estonian waters, a predictive model was used (200m resolution), that was converted to presence/absence using minimized difference threshold (MDT) criteria. All data (Fucus points and the raster presenting predicted presence of Fucus) were generalized to 5km x 5km grid cells.

The occurrence of suitable nursery habitats is crucial for maintaining fish populations (Sundblad et al. 2013). Species distribution modelling studies have shown the importance of suitable environmental conditions for pikeperch recruitment. Due to lack of coherent data on pikeperch spawning and nursery areas across the Baltic Sea countries, environmental variables were used in delineating potential recruitment areas for pikeperch. The pikeperch recruitment area presented on the map is mainly delineated by selecting areas where depth < 5 m, logged exposure < 5, salinity < 7 PSU, Secchi depth < 2 m and distance to deep (10m) water < 4km. The threshold values have been obtained from literature (Veneranta et al. 2011, Bergström et al. 2013, Sundblad et al. 2013, Kallasvuo et al. 2016). Temperature, although important for pikeperch, was left out due to high variation in timing of suitable spawning temperatures across the Baltic Sea. In Finnish coastal waters, a national pikeperch model (Kallasvuo et al. 2016) has been used, with very suitable areas for pikeperch generalized to 1 km grid. In Sweden, the areas delineated by environmental variables have been complemented with information from national interview survey (Gunnartz et al. 2011) as well as expert opinion.

Distribution of blue mussel based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Mainly pointwise occurrences of Mytilus spp. were submitted, originally gathered in national mapping and monitoring campaigns, or for scientific research. Point data from Poland was digitized based on Polish Marine Atlas. From Lithuania, a polygon delineating reefs was used to present Mytilus occurrence. For Germany, point data was complemented with a model describing Mytilus biomass in the German marine area (Darr et al. 2014), where predicted biomasses > 1g dw/ m2 were included as presence. From Estonian waters, a predictive model was used (200m resolution), that was converted to presence/absence using minimized difference threshold (MDT) criteria. All data (points, polygon and the raster presenting predicted presence of Mytilus) were generalized to 5km x 5km grid cells.

Distribution of eelgrass based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Mainly pointwise occurrences of eelgrass were submitted, originally gathered in national mapping and monitoring campaigns, or for scientific research. Polygon data from Puck Bay (Poland) was digitized based on Polish Marine Atlas and Orlowo cliff area was added based on expert knowledge. From Estonian waters, a predictive model was used (200m resolution), that was converted to presence/absence using minimized difference threshold (MDT) criteria. All data (points, polygon and the raster presenting predicted presence of eelgrass in the Estonian waters) were generalized to 5km x 5km grid cells.

Submarine structures made by leaking gases (according to Habitats Directive Annex I) are also known as “bubbling reefs”. These formations support a zonation of diverse benthic communities consisting of algae and/or invertebrate specialists of hard marine substrates different to that of the surrounding habitat. The distribution map is based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Only Sweden and Denmark reported occurrences of submarine structures made by leaking gases.

The extraction of Sprat data set is based on: 1. http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/1fb1bd2d-8dff-493a-9ed3-a278aec8f371 for years 2011-2016 reported per ICES statistical rectangles (tonnes / ICES rectangle). Landing values were redistributed within each ICES rectangle by the c-square fishing effort data provided by ICES (all gears, 2011-2013). Tonnes / km² was calculated and the results were converted to 1 km x 1 km grid cells. The layer was log-transformed and normalised to produce the final pressure layer on extraction of Sprat. Please see "lineage" section below for further details on attributes, data source, data processing, etc.

Potential cumulative impacts of eutrophication and hazardous substances assesses the cumulative potential effect of eutrophication and hazardous substances over all ecosystem components. The evaluation is based on the pressure layer on eutrophication and hazardous substances, combined with information on all ecosystem components (57 layers) included in SPIA for HOLAS 3. The thematic analyses is calculated for each assessment unit (1 km2 grid cells) and the data set covers the time period 2016-2021. Spatial Pressure and Impact Assessment (SPIA) is the framework for assessing spatial and cumulative pressures and impacts in HOLAS 3, and this analyses present a thematic assessment including only a certain subset of layers. The framework also includes results for the Baltic Sea Impact Index (full cumulative impact assessment), Baltic Sea Pressure Index (full cumulative pressure assessment), and other thematic assessments where a subset of pressure and ecosystem layers are used. For more info please - visit the HOLAS 3 website (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/) - download the report thematic assessment of spatial distribution of pressures and impacts 2016-2021 (https://helcom.fi/post_type_publ/holas3_spa) - or check out the HELCOM SPIA online tool to make calculations for any desired combination of pressures and ecosystem layers (https://maps.helcom.fi/website/bsii/). Please scroll down to "Lineage" for a more detailed description of the methodology.

The map of herring relative abundance is mainly based on Baltic International acoustic surveys (BIAS), years 2011-2016 (ICES WGBIFS reports), reported as millions of herring / ICES rectangle. Also herring landings data were used to complement the data. For ICES rectangles surveyed by BIAS, values shown are the mean values per ICES rectangle based on BIAS data, average for 2011-2016. For ICES rectangles not surveyed by BIAS, values are calculated as: MAX-value x Weighting factor. The weighting factor is specific to each ICES rectangle, calculated as the ratio between the commercial landings in that rectangle and the commercial landings in the ICES rectangle with highest landings (based on averages for 2011-2016). MAX-value = millions of herring according to BIAS in the ICES rectangle with highest landings. ICES rectangles outside the BIAS survey area with no reported herring landings were given the value 0. The relative abundance values in each ICES rectangle were divided by the area of the rectangle to obtain values per 1km2. If the values in small coastal ICES rectangles (outside BIAS area) became unrealistically large due to high herring landings, the value of the neighboring rectangle was given. The final layer was converted to 1 km x 1km grid cells. Values were first log transformed and normalized.