1. SustainBaltic
High Nature and Cultural Heritage Values with the Challenge of Marginalisation Siiri Külm, Janar Raet, Anne Kull, Kalev Sepp, Pille Tomson, Maaria Semm, Anu Printsmann, Tarmo Pikner Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tallinn University

2. SustainBaltic Estonian project area
with possible buffers towards inland

3. SustainBaltic
Phase one – Integrating available data
4 sets of thematic maps were produced for project area (3 counties with territorial sea) containing cartographic information from several available sources:
High value nature areas
Land/Sea use
Marginalisation and sparsely populated areas
Cultural Heritage

4. SustainBaltic
High value nature areas
Several layers were incorporated, mainly originating from Environmental Register

5. SustainBaltic
High value nature areas Lääne County

6. High value nature areas, Harju County

7. SustainBaltic
High value nature areas Lääne-Viru County

8. SustainBaltic
More than 50% of Lääne County’s sea area is covered by Natura 2000 SPAs & SACs

9. SustainBaltic Land/Sea use
Several layers were incorporated, mainly originating Estonian Basic Map and Mineral Resources Map (Estonian Land Board), Nautical charts (Maritime Administration)

13. SustainBaltic
Cultural Heritage
Integrated data from several sources (State Forest Management Centre, National Heritage Board of Estonia, Ministry of Finance, County plans)

14. Cultural Heritage

15. SustainBaltic
Lääne-Viru County
Cultural Heritage

16. SustainBaltic
Lääne County
Cultural Heritage

17. Marginalisation, sparsely populated areas
SustainBaltic
Marginalisation, sparsely populated areas
Datasets derived from Estonian Statistics Censuses data from 2001 and 2011 containing demographic information

18. Age group 15-69years dynamics 2001 to 2011

19. SustainBaltic Phase two – generating basis for test areas selection
4 input maps with number value classes were produced to create common basis about gathered cartographic information
As output is a map of areal features, buffer zones of impact areas were generated for point and line elements in this process

20. Input map: Nature values (red=most valuable)

21. Input map: Cultural values

22. Input map: Human pressure
Class 1- Towns, industrial areas, powerlines (110kV+), big harbors, „Hard“ minerals, wind turbines, big road Class 2- „Mild“ minerals, pipelines and cables, military areas at sea Class 3- Villages, forest, wetland, field, grassland, recreational sites, ice bridges, small harbors, waterbody

23. Input map: Marginalisation (Rural settlements, County based classes)
SustainBaltic
5- No people or „workers < pensioners“ ratio with density situation of classes The share of pensioners is bigger than workers or Density 25% or less of county’s average 3- Density 25-40% of county’s average 2- Density 40-50% of county’s average 1- Density % of county’s average OK- Density exceeds county’s average

24. Phase three: Calculating the suitability map+ + + =

25. Phase three: Calculating the suitability map
Compiled suitability map Red = more suitable
- What were we looking for? Areas with high nature value, demographic problems, cultural values and lower economical pressure (more traditional)

26. SustainBaltic
Phase two – generating basis for testareas selection
Estonian partners of the project are supposed to select two test areas for ICZM zonation
As Harju County is not typical Estonian county (about 2/3 (60625 of 88215) of rural settlement’s population in the project area is located in Harju County) the test areas should be located in Lääne-Viru County and Lääne County
Some examples how diferent the Harju County can be:

27. Marginalisation (Rural settlements, 3 Counties joint classes) - Harju density affects the average too much
5- No people or „workers < pensioners“ ratio with density situation of classes The share of pensioners is bigger than workers or Density 25% or less of average 3- Density 25-40% of average 2- Density 40-50% of average 1- Density % of average OK- Density exceeds average
Average density (per km²): LM-13,2 LV-14,5 HM-68,3 3 Counties merged average: 23,7
(wetland & big forest excluded from area)

28. Age group 15-69years dynamics 2001 to 2011
Outstanding behavior of Harju County – Good situation in most of rural settlements

29. Two sections of shoreline were selected as locations for preliminary test areas:

30. SustainBaltic
Lääne test area: from Riguldi to Keibu

31. SustainBaltic Lääne test area: Possible problems:
Protected areas versus tourism as neighbour
Crossborder situation and administrative difference (Keibu is from Harju County)
Possible problems:
Intensive residential-house building
Crowded beach areas, bad accessibility (Nõva)
Neugrundi shallow: Nature protection versus Military

32. SustainBaltic
Lääne-Viru test area: from Käsmu to Kunda

33. SustainBaltic Lääne-Viru test area: Possible problems:
Nature protection area with traditional settlements versus no restrictions area next to it
Possible problems:
Extension of harbors (Võsu, Käsmu, Kunda, Karepa)
Intensive residential-house building
Crowded beach areas, bad accessibility
Industrial pressure from Kunda

34. What next?
Defining test areas concrete borders and focus
ICZM zoning for 2 test areas
Near Future Timetable:
June ̶ September mapping possible problems and conflicts on test areas - gathering test area specific information - fieldworks - communications about gathered information
October ̶ December First drafts of ICZM plans

35. SustainBaltic
Thank You!