From 1 - 10 / 78
  • Physical loss pressure layer combines all human activities that cause physical loss of seabed. The pressure is given as area lost in each cell (km2). For the polygon datasets the area was assumed to be the lost area. For line and point datasets spatial extents were calculated with buffers (below in brackets). If no buffer extent is indicated, the data was reported as polygon. The human activities used for the physical loss pressure: - Bridges (2 m) - Cables (operational; 1,5 m) - Coastal defence and flood protection (area of polygon, 50 m for lines) - Dredging (capital dredging, Area of polygon or a 25/50 m buffer for <5000 m3 / >5000m3 points) - Extraction of sand and gravel - Finfish mariculture (150 m) - Harbours (polygon with 200 m buffer) - Land claim (area of polygon, 30m buffer for lines) - Marinas and leisure harbours (200 m) - Oil platforms (25 m) - Oil terminals and refineries (200 m) - Pipelines (operational; 15 m) - Shellfish mariculture (area of polygon, 150 m points) - Watercourse modification (50 m) - Wind turbines (operational; 30m point location of turbine) The datasets were first processed separately covering the whole Baltic Sea and then merged into one uniform data layer and minimizing the effect of overlapping areas. Polygon areas were clipped with coastline to remove buffered areas that reached to land.

  • This pressure dataset is derived from three human activities datasets - Urban land use (on land) - Recreational boating and sports (updated layer for 2018 version, please see separate http://metadata.helcom.fi/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/8c30e828-1340-4162-b7f9-254586ae32b6) - Bathing sites These data are described in more detail in separate fact sheets. Urban land use data was first converted to 1 km grid cells and expanded with 1 km. Thus, coastal urban areas extended also to the sea. These areas were given value 1 and other sea areas, value 0. Bathing sites (points) were converted to 1km grid and given value 1, rest of the sea areas were given value 0. Normalized recreational boating data was converted to 1 km grid cells. These three layers were summed to produce the layer (values from 0 to 3), after that the layer was normalized. Hunting and recreational fishing data were excluded from human disturbance layer, as they are mostly reported per country and would have resulted in overestimation of the actual pressure.

  • 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.

  • Estuaries (according to Habitats Directive Annex I) are coastal inlets that are strongly influenced by freshwater. The distribution map is based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Most of the submitted data is based on modelling, GIS analysis and/or aerial photos. Data coverage, accuracy and the methods in obtaining the data vary between countries.

  • This map presents the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) with reported breeding areas for birds. The spatial data on Special Protection Areas were gathered from the HELCOM contracting parties by Lund University, Sweden. In the data, the countries also indicated whether the sites were designated mainly due to wintering or breeding birds in the area. For Denmark, the information was obtained from standard forms for Natura 2000 sites. For Denmark, the data was updated after review process 20 February 2017. For Germany, the areas that were reported as “NA”(=information not available) were included in both breeding and wintering area maps. Many of the SPAs are both wintering and breeding areas. For the Baltic Sea Impact Index, the data was converted to 1 km x 1km grid cells.

  • Lagoons are expanses of shallow coastal waters, wholly or partially separated from the sea by sandbanks or shingle, or by rocks. Salinity may vary from brackish water to hypersalinity depending on rainfall, evaporation and addition of fresh seawater from storms, temporary flooding, or tidal exchange. The distribution map is based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Most of the submitted data is based on modelling and/or GIS analysis. Data coverage, accuracy and the methods in obtaining the data vary between countries.

  • 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.

  • Broad-scale habitat maps for the Baltic Sea have been produced in the EUSeaMap project in 2016. For German and Estonian marine areas, national (more accurate) datasets were used. German data included both substrate and light information (division into infralittoral/circalittoral). Estonian data included only substrate and the division into light regimes was obtained from the EuSeaMap data. Here, the habitat class “infralittoral mud” includes classes “Fine mud”, “Mud to sandy mud” and “Sandy mud” of the original data, in the infralittoral zone. The original polygon maps have been converted to 1 km x 1km grid. The scale of the substrate data used in broad-scale habitat maps varies from 1:250 000 to 1:1M (data from EMODnet Geology). Coarser resolution data has been used in areas, where 1: 250 000 substrate data has not been available. Due to different scales used, the habitat classes may show different sized patterns in different areas.

  • Large shallow inlets bays (according to Habitats Directive Annex I) are large, shallow indentations of the coast, sheltered from wave action and where, in contrast to estuaries, the influence of freshwater is generally limited. The distribution map is based on data submission by HELCOM contracting parties. Most of the submitted data is based on GIS analysis and modelling, but also field inventories and ground-truthing has been carried out in some areas. Data coverage, accuracy and the methods in obtaining the data vary between countries.

  • 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.