provide introduction and case study identification ... the zoil and gas capital of europe. ... (such...

[Partner logo]

Contract no. 633838

PROVIDE

PROVIding smart DElivery of public goods by EU agriculture and forestry

Call identifier: H2020-ISIB-2014-2; Topic: ISIB-01-2014

Funding scheme: Research and Innovation Action (RIA)

Document related to Deliverable:

D3.2 - Report synthesizing the findings of the CSR level mapping of public good

demand and supply, its underlying determinants, producers and beneficiaries

CSR REPORT SCOTLAND

Final version: 14/06/2016

Start date of project: 01 September 2015

Duration: 36 months

Organisation name of lead beneficiary for this deliverable:

The James Hutton Institute - JHI

Authors Anja Byg, Michela Faccioli, Paula Novo, Katrin Martens

Project funded by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 Programme (2014-

2020)

Dissemination Level

PU Public x

PP Restricted to other programme participants (Including the Commission

2

Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (Including the

Commission Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (Including the


3

Content

Content ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1 Introduction and case study identification ........................................................................................................ 4

2 Main maps available .......................................................................................................................................... 6

3 Main maps commented ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Annex 1 - Hotspot description form ..................................................................................................................... 17

Annex 2 – List of maps available ........................................................................................................................... 20

Annex 3 - Identification of large discrepancies with EU level maps ..................................................................... 24

4

1 Introduction and case study identification

This document reports the outcomes of the mapping activities (tasks 3.3-3.4) for the Scottish Case

Study Region (CSR), Aberdeenshire. It summarizes the availability of maps showing the distribution

of Public Goods (and Bads) in the CSR.

The report focuses on the public goods (PGs) and public bads (PBs) identified as most relevant in the

CSR by the stakeholders participating in the first PROVIDE case study region workshop in Scotland,

which took place in Aberdeenshire in February 2016.

The structure of the report is as follows: the document first includes a description of the context

characterizing the CSR (Aberdeenshire), then it provides an overview of available, relevant maps. In

the following section, it presents the maps of the most relevant PGs/PBs alongside with a discussion

around the underlying determinants of PG/PB provision. In Annex 1, two potential Aberdeenshire

case study areas for the subsequent phases of the PROVIDE project are presented. These were

identified on the basis of the first regional stakeholder workshop. A detailed list of the available

maps and datasets is included in Annex 2. Annex 3 provides downscaled versions of EU-level maps

produced by PROVIDE partners from the Vrije Universitet Amsterdam (VU) and the Natural

Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), together with digitalised versions of maps produced in a

participatory mapping exercise in the first regional stakeholder workshop in Aberdeenshire, and

comments on similarites and differences between local and EU level maps.

Aberdeenshire

The Scottish case study region consists of Aberdeenshire, located in the north-east of Scotland.

Aberdeenshire covers approximately 6,300 km2 and has a population of around 260,000 people

(excluding the city of Aberdeen). The economy of Aberdeenshire is closely connected to that of the

city of Aberdeen: the ‘oil and gas capital of Europe’. Many Aberdeenshire residents commute to

Aberdeen for work, whilst others are employed in agriculture, fishing or forestry (4.38% of the

Aberdeenshire population in 20111). The county’s main land use is agriculture, with large areas of

arable farming (producing predominantly barley, wheat and oilseed rape) in the eastern and

northern parts of the region and some pockets of marginal farming in the mountainous regions to

the west. While Aberdeenshire constitutes around 9% of the total land area of Scotland it has

around 26% of the total arable area of Scotland. The industry is worth £395million, and is

responsible for 30% of the oilseed rape and 28% of cereals outputs from Scotland1.

1 www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/media/15921/land-based-sector-web.pdf

http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/media/15921/land-based-sector-web.pdf

5

Around 19% of Aberdeenshire is covered in woodland (excluding the area that falls within the

Cairngorms National Park) which is close to the national average (18%). Most of this consists of

commercial conifer plantations and most is under private ownership. Semi-natural woodlands are

concentrated in the areas around the rivers Dee and Don. Similar to the national forest strategy,

Aberdeenshire aims to increase the amount of woodland cover to 25% of the total land area.

However, woodland expansion is by many considered controversial as woodlands are seen to

compete with agriculture over land2. In addition, in the upland areas there are conflicting interests

between forestry on the one hand, and management for game (such as grouse and deer) on the

other, which is an important income source for many estates. One of Scotland’s two National Parks,

the Cairngorms National Park, covers the western part of Aberdeenshire. The national park places

some planning restrictions on the land that falls within it (e.g. no wind turbine development), but it

does not preclude settlements or production oriented land uses such as forestry and agriculture. The

national park together with the area along the rivers Dee and Spey are major tourist destinations in

Scotland. Tourism constitutes another important revenue source in Aberdeenshire (estimated visitor

spending in 2013 was £220 million corresponding to roughly 5.5% of Aberdeenshire’s GDP). Tourism

is concentrated around outdoor activities such as hiking, fishing and sports shooting, as well as

historic monuments and the whisky industry.

2 www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/media/15632/2016-0003845-2016-02-04-proposed-aberdeenshire-forestry-and-woodland-strategy-2016.pdf

http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/media/15632/2016-0003845-2016-02-04-proposed-aberdeenshire-forestry-and-woodland-strategy-2016.pdf

6

2 Main maps available

The main source of publicly available maps is Scotland’s Environment Web (SEweb -

http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk) which brings together environmental data and reports

from a wide range of organisations involved in environmental protection and improvement in

Scotland, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the Scottish Government,

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Forestry Commission Scotland).

The following map layers available on SEweb are the most relevant in relation to the public goods

and bads identified as important for Aberdeenshire by the participants in the first regional

stakeholder workshop

(http://map.environment.scotland.gov.uk/seweb/map.htm?menutype=0&layers=2):

- Land cover based on the EUNIS classification of land uses

- Suitability for crops

- Water quality of surface water

- Water quality of ground water

- Designations

- Ancient woodlands

- Native woodlands

- Green space

- Core paths

- National scenic areas

All the maps are interactive, so that the scale can be adjusted by the user, though some information

(e.g. on native woodlands) is only visible at particular scales. In this report, screenshots of the maps

at the level of Aberdeenshire have been included as illustrations. The two potential hotspot areas

which may consitute the focus for the next phases of the PROVIDE project are indicated by circles.

These two areas are the area along the upper parts of the river Dee, in the south-western part of

Aberdeenshire, and the river Ugie catchment area in the north-eastern part of Aberdeenshire. More

details on the two areas are provided in Annex 1.

http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/

http://map.environment.scotland.gov.uk/seweb/map.htm?menutype=0&layers=2

7

3 Main maps commented

Land cover and crop production potential

The map showing land cover in Aberdeenshire (map 1) provides a general overview over the

distribution of different agricultural land cover, forestry and other types of land cover in

Aberdeenshire. The map indicates areas of agriculture and forestry in Aberdeenshire and thus helps

set the scene for where we can expect to find major areas of production of public goods and bads

from agriculture and forestry in Aberdeenshire. However, the map does not provide information on

the agriculture or forestry system (apart from discerning between crop cultivation and grassland

areas).

Map 1. Land cover in Aberdeenshire (circles indicate potential case study areas)(source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk)


8

The map showing potential for crop production (map 2) helps understand the current concentration

of different land uses in different areas of Aberdeenshire. Altogether, only a relatively small part of

Scotland’s land surface provides suitable conditions for intensive crop production due to factors such

as slope and soil quality. Generally speaking, the northern and eastern parts of Aberdeenshire are

where the more fertile and level areas are found, while the inland areas to the west become

gradually steeper and poorer quality soils, although pockets of level areas can still be found along

major rivers such as the Dee, Don and Spey. Crop production is therefore largely concentrated in

these areas, while land use shifts towards more extensive grazing in the upland areas (together with

other land uses such as forestry, shooting and recreation). On top of these large scale patterns local

variations can be found. Participants in the first stakeholder workshop thus pointed out that soil

quality can often vary on a very small scale, partly due to natural factors and partly due to the land

management. This means that higher level maps can sometimes be misleading in relation to

particular locations.

Map 2. Potential for crop production in Aberdeenshire (circles indicate potential case study areas)(source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk)


9

Surface water and ground water quality

Amongst the most important issues of public goods/bads highlighted in the first stakeholder

workshop in Aberdeenshire were issues of water quality and quantity/flows. The available maps

show that there substantial problems with water quality both in surface water (map 3) and

groundwater (map 4) in the north-eastern part of Aberdeenshire. Surface water is used as source of

drinking water in many places. In addition, water quality in rivers is also an issue for the whisky

industry and for recreational angling (which are important income sources in the area).

Map 3. Surface water quality in Aberdeenshire (circles indicate potential case study areas)(source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk)

The areas with main problems in relation to water quality are predominantly situated in areas of

high intensity agriculture. One of the potential case study areas is situated in the northeast of

Aberdeenshire in an area of intensive agriculture, which was identified as one of the areas with

major water problems by the stakeholders, which is in accordance with the information indicated by

the available maps. The other potential case study area is on a gradient from low agriculture (in the

west) to more agriculture (in the east) and generally shows less water quality problems, though

there are some river tributaries where water quality is an issue. In addition, this area experienced

major flooding issues in the winter of 2015/16 which has sparked debates about the causes and the

10

right management of rivers as well as surrounding land as land management (in combination with

unusually heavy rainfalls) is seen as a major cause of flooding.

Map 4. Ground water quality in Aberdeenshire (circles indicate potential case study areas)(source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk)

Biodiversity

No maps of biodiversity as such are currently available. However, maps can be found to indicate the

existence of designated areas (map 5), as well as for ancient (map 6) and native woodlands (maps 7a

and 7b). These areas are often associated with high levels of biodiversity and can therefore give

some indication of biodiversity values from forests in Aberdeenshire. Taken together these sets of

maps can be taken to indicate low levels of biodiversity in the intensive farming area in the

northeastern part of the region, and higher levels of biodiversity in the southwestern part of the

region, which correspond to the two potential case study regions.

11

Map 5. Different types of designated areas in Aberdeenshire (circles indicate potential case study areas)(source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk)

Map 6. Ancient woodlands in Aberdeenshire (circles indicate potential case study areas)(source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk)


12

Map 7. Native woodlands in the two potential case study areas (a) the northeastern part of Aberdeenshire (b) and the southwestern part (source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk)

a)

b)


13

Recreation

Recreation constituted a frequently mentioned public good though it was not mapped by the

workeshop participants. Below we include maps which can give some indication of recreational

opportunities in Aberdeenshire. One is the map showing location of greenspace areas (map 8). The

other shows core paths in Aberdeenshire (Map 9). Greenspace is by definition only found around

more urban areas. While they might seem irrelevant in relation to public goods from agriculture and

forestry, we have included them here due to the growing importance afforded to urban forestry. The

map does not differentiate between different types of greenspace, and it is hence not possible to

see where urban forestry contributes to the recreational opportunities in Aberdeen. In neither one

of the two potential hotspot areas does greenspace feature very prominently.

Map 8. Greenspace in Aberdeenshire (circles indicate potential case study areas)(source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk)


14

The distribution of core paths in Aberdeenshire is heavily biased towards the area immediately

surrounding the city of Aberdeen as well as the Cairngorms National Park, and areas along the

northern coast of Aberdeenshire. The latter two are the areas more closely associated with tourism

in Aberdeenshire, but these areas are also important recreational areas for the local inhabitants.

Most core paths are located in mountainous areas and along major river courses though many also

run through forest areas for part of their course. Few core paths are situated in agricultural areas, as

indicated by the lack of core paths in the north-eastern part of Aberdeenshire. However, this does

not mean that there are no paths in these areas. While the absence of core paths indicates that

these areas are not major (walking) tourism areas, they may still be important as recreational areas

for local people in those areas.

Map 9. Core paths in Aberdeenshire (circles indicate potential case study areas)(source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk)


15

The map showing designated National Scenic Areas (map 10) also gives an indication of areas

important for recreation and tourism, as well as for landscape, scenery and aesthetics, which were

also frequently mentioned public goods. The only designated National Scenic Areas in

Aberdeenshire are found within the Cairngorms National Park. This indicates the national

importance of this area which is considered iconic for Scotland and is a major tourist destination.

The main reason for the iconic status of this area can be found in the topography as this area

contains many of the highest mountains in the UK. Agriculture and forestry do, however, impact on

the scenic quality of this as well as of other areas. The iconic mountain landscapes of Scotland are

currently largely without forests and are kept open through grazing (by deer and/or sheep) as well as

periodic burning in some areas (to keep the vegetation open to promote grouse populations). There

are thus debates around the right amount, location and types of forests, not just in Aberdeenshire

but in Scotland in general, and conflicts around different types of recreation, biodiversity, timber

production and climate mitigation.

The lack of designations in other parts of Aberdeenshire does not mean that other areas do not

provide important landscape and asthetic values to local inhabitants, though participants indicated

that intensity of agriculture was negatively linked to aesthetic qualities of the landscape.

Map 10. National scenic areas (circles indicate potential case study areas)(source: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk)


16

Digitalised versions of the maps produced by participants at the first Aberdeenshire regional

PROVIDE workshop showing hotspots and cold spots of important public goods and bads from

agriculture and forestry are show in Annex 3. Likewise, downscaled maps based on EU level data,

produced for PROVIDE by the project teams from VU and LUKE are included in Annex 3 and the

results from the two sets of maps are compared to each other.

The potential case study hotspots for Scotland

The two potential case study hotspots for Scotland (the Upper Deeside and the Ugie catchment)

were initially selected based on the mapping activity and discussions held during the first

stakeholder workshop in Aberdeenshire in February 2016. The publicly available maps included in

this report confirm that these two area show very contrasting cases of public goods and bads from

agriculture and forestry.

The Ugie catchment is an area of intensive agriculture which is seen to have serious, negative

impacts on the water quality of rivers and lochs in the area due to the use of molluscicides and other

agricultural chemicals. The intensive agriculture also produces public bads in the form of low levels

of biodiversity and negative impacts on landscape quality. At the same time, however, the area is

seen as important in terms of food production especially in light of the relative scarcity of productive

land in Scotland, and thereby also contributes to the economics and rural vitality of the area. Most

of the agriculture in the area is in the form of owner-occupied individual farms.

The upper Deeside presents a very different picture. Agriculture does not play an important part

here. Instead forestry and recreational activities such as shooting and fishing are more important,

and ownership is characterised by large, private estates. The area is seen to produce many public

goods in the form of recreational and scenic values though there are some problems, mainly in

relation to water quality and quantity and conflicts between different interests. While the regional

authorities are keen to expand the forest cover in this as well as other parts of Aberdeenshire as part

of Scotland’s climate mitigation obligations, this is contrary to sports shooting interests and also to

the scenic qualities that many associate with the upland areas of Scotland. Furthermore, recent

floods have highlighted the impacts of land management practices on water run-off, and have

highlighted the interconnected nature of upland land uses and downstream problems.

17

Annex 1 - Hotspot description form*

Number UK-1 UK-2

Country/region Scotland, Aberdeenshire Scotland, Aberdeenshire

Sub-area Lowland area, (Ugie catchment)

(sub-NUTS 3)

Upper Dee area (Deeside) (sub-

NUTS 3)

Title Public bads from intensive

agriculture

Public goods and bads from an

upland area dominated by forestry

and recreation.

Story (description) The area around the Ugie is the

major crop producing area and

relatively intensive mixed

farming area in Aberdeenshire

with problems especially in

relation to water quality but

also quantity as well as

landscape and biodiversity.

The area in the upper part of the

river Dee is a popular tourism and

recreation site in addition to

harbouring forestry and some

extensive agriculture activities. It is

seen as an area providing many

goods, but also an area where many

different interests compete with

each other and problems such as

flooding, water pollution(in some

parts) and inequity as area is

unaffordable to many. It receives

many tourist visitors, especially in

the upper reaches where mixed low

intensity land use predominates

including native woodland and

extensive upland farming and

significant areas managed mainly for

hunting.

Mix of goods (list relevant

goods and bads;

public/private) involved,

under/overprovision,

trends

Public: food security, water

pollution especially from

nitrates phosphates and

molluscicides, flooding, loss of

biodiversity, drinking water

provision, relatively few jobs

created by this kind of highly

mechanised agriculture,

negative impacts on landscape.

Private: food production,

income

Public: landscape, culture,

recreation, identity (local and

national), biodiversity, water quality

and quantity (both good and bad)

Private: food production, timber

production, income

Causes of mismatch High profitability of intensive Overlap of many different interests

18

between demand and

supply

agriculture under current

subsidy schemes and markets

(compared to other land uses),

costs to clean up water not

borne by private polluters (i.e.

the farmers) but by semi-public

water companies.

that sometimes conflict: e.g. private

estates managed for shooting vs.

the public interest (and right) to use

the same areas for recreation-

commercial sport fishing (salmon)

and canoeing on same water body.

Conservation of biodiversity vs.

shooting interests and some

recreation interests.

Motivation (results of W3) Local: came out as a ‘problem

area’ during the mapping, in

terms of pollution, soil

maintenance, biodiversity,

water quality, beautiful

landscape and climate

mitigation.

EU: likely similar issue in other

intensive farming areas

Local: the area came out as

important during the mapping.

Hotspot for water quality,

landscape, biodiversity, soil

maintenance with some cold spots

in terms of land management and

biodiversity.

Valuation issues (WP4) Market: cost-effectiveness of

intensive agriculture where

machinery has largely replaced

labour, profit margins for

agriculture.

Non market: pollution as

externality/clean-up cost borne

by the public, lack of

contribution to job creation and

thereby rural vitality, landscape

impacts, biodiversity loss,

pollution, lack of soil

maintenance, loss of water

quality, problems in terms of

climate mitigation.

Market: (loss of) income from

salmon fishing, tourism activities,

income from hunting, timber and

agriculture

Non market: pollution as externality,

cost of flooding damage,

biodiversity, recreation, landscape,

water quality and quantity. Some

recreation marketed, some not

market-based with problems of non-

excludability

Scientific method for

valuation of public goods

(available/suitable) (WP4)

Methods: choice experiment,

deliberative valuation

Methods: choice experiment,

deliberative valuation

Mechanism design issues

(WP5)

Policy: PES-like schemes

(Scottish Water Sustainable

Land Management Incentive

Scheme), single-farm payment,

Policy: single-farm payment, agri-

environmental schemes, public

access rights, PES or other market-

based mechanisms (e.g. private

estates investing in biodiversity and

19

agri-environmental schemes. recreation as a source of income,

biodiversity offsetting mechanisms).

Environmental NGOs ownership of

some areas.

Scientific methods for

evaluation of appropriate

governance strategies

(available/suitable) (WP5)

Methods: scenarios,

games/experiments

Methods: scenarios,

games/experiments

Theoretical/conceptual

issues (WP6)

Interaction between different

policies and delivery of multiple

benefits.

Distributional issues: who gains

and who loses? Interplay

between multiple public goods

(or avoided public

bads).Interplay between

different possible policy

instruments.

Interaction of extensive agriculture

and forestry with each other and in

relation to conservation and other

land uses such as recreation.

Justice/equity issues and

distributional issues: who gains and

who loses? Property right issues.

Interplay between multiple public

goods (or avoided public bads).

Interplay between different possible

policy instruments.

Decision

making/information

needs (WP6)

Social acceptability and equity

of policy measures. Social

welfare and economic value.

Prioritizing interventions.

Consideration of multiple

criteria when taking decisions?

Social acceptability of policy

measures (economic value).

Prioritizing interventions.

Consideration of multiple criteria

when taking decisions.

*Preliminary hotspot description which will be subject to refinements following the second regional

stakeholder workshop in June 2016

20

Annex 2 – List of maps available

Map Source Licence issue

1. Publicly available maps http://www.

environment

.scotland.gov

.uk)

Open data

Land cover based on the EUNIS classification of

land uses

http://map.e

nvironment.s

cotland.gov.

uk/seweb/m

ap.htm?men

utype=0&lay

ers=2

Open data

Suitability for crops http://map.e

nvironment.s

cotland.gov.

uk/seweb/m

ap.htm?men

utype=0&lay

ers=2

Open data

Water quality of surface water

http://map.e

nvironment.s

cotland.gov.

uk/seweb/m

ap.htm?men

utype=0&lay

ers=2

Open data

Water quality of ground water http://map.e

nvironment.s

cotland.gov.

uk/seweb/m

ap.htm?men

utype=0&lay

ers=2

Open data

Designations (including National parks, areas of

special scientific interests, national scenic areas,

national nature reserves, special areas of

conservation, special protection areas)

http://map.e

nvironment.s

cotland.gov.

uk/seweb/m

ap.htm?men

utype=0&lay

Open data







































21

ers=2

Ancient woodlands http://map.e

nvironment.s

cotland.gov.

uk/seweb/m

ap.htm?men

utype=0&lay

ers=2

Open data

Native woodlands http://map.e

nvironment.s

cotland.gov.

uk/seweb/m

ap.htm?men

utype=0&lay

ers=2

Open data

Green space http://map.e

nvironment.s

cotland.gov.

uk/seweb/m

ap.htm?men

utype=0&lay

ers=2

Open data

Core paths http://map.e

nvironment.s

cotland.gov.

uk/seweb/m

ap.htm?men

utype=0&lay

ers=2

Open data

National Scenic Areas http://map.e

nvironment.s

cotland.gov.

uk/seweb/m

ap.htm?men

utype=0&lay

ers=2

Open data

2. Other maps

Land Cover Map 2000

Centre for

Ecology and

Requires

permission. The

data is for use in




































http://www.ceh.ac.uk/LandCoverMap2000.html

22

Hydrology non-commercial

projects only.

Land Cover Map 2007 Centre for

Ecology and

Hydrology

JHI has licence

for non-

commercial use.

National Forestry Inventory - Scotland Forestry

Commission

License.

Intellectual

Property Rights

Land Capability for Agriculture

Macaulay

Land Use

Research

Institute /

James

Hutton

Institute

Land Capability for Forestry

Macaulay

Land Use

Research

Institute /

James

Hutton

Institute

Land Cover of Scotland 1988 Macaulay

Land Use

Research

Institute /

James

Hutton

Institute

Scotland's Greenspace Map (SGM)

Data distributed by the Central Scotland Green

Network Support Unit, Central Scotland Forest Trust

Licence use: Data

is provided under

the terms of the

One Scotland

Mapping

Agreement. Any

use of the data

should be

accompanied by

a watermark and

23

copyright

statement as

detailed in the

metadata.

Copyight

Statement:

Reproduced by

permission of

Ordnance Survey

on behalf of

HMSO. Crown

copyright and

database right

2011. All rights

reserved.

Ordnance Survey

Licence number

100002151

Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) Scottish

Environment

al Protection

Agency

For non-

commercial

projects only

24

Annex 3 – comparison of downscaled EU level maps and maps produced by

stakeholders.

This section contains digitised images of selected public goods/bads mapped by participants of the

first Aberdeenshire PROVIDE workshop in February 2016 in a participatory mapping exercise, and

downscaled maps based on EU level data produced by the PROVIDE project teams from VU and

LUKE. In most cases, the public goods/bads mapped by the workshop participants do not correspond

directly to the type of data available at the EU level which in itself is an important source of

discrepancies between the two sets of maps. Workshop participants for example often included

several issues in one map (e.g. water quality and quantity in one map; pollution of air, water, and

soil in one map). In addition, the workshop participants were limited to identifying seven good/high,

intermediate and bad/low areas respectively for each selected public good and their maps did

therefore not provide a full coverage of the entire region. In the following we show and compare the

downscaled EU level maps and workshop maps that are most closely related to each other in terms

of their content.

Summary of public goods and bads

The first set of maps is a compilation of all the different public goods (and bads) which were mapped

based on the EU level data and in the workshop, respectively.

Map 11. Summary of public good hotspots based on EU-level data

25

Map 12. Summary of all the public good hot- and coldspots identified by workshop participants

In comparison to the downscaled EU level map, the summary of hot- and coldspots identified by the

workshop participants in Aberdeenshire shows a more spread distribution of both hot- and

coldspots. This is due to both differences in issues which the participants focussed on compared to

the available EU level maps as well as the more detailed local knowledge of the participants. The

latter meant that participants pointed out particular river stretches, lochs, or local areas based on

detailed knowledge about these places. However, it also meant that there were areas that they

knew less well, which were therefore not pointed out on the maps as either hot- or coldspots. This

was especially the case for issues such as soil status, where the participants pointed out that this

often varied from field to field depending on the practices of individual farmers and that they could

hence only talk about localities that they knew well.

26

Biodiversity

The second set of maps relates to biodiversity. Two of the EU level maps (map 13) focus on

agrobiodiversity and farmland birds in particular, while the map produced by the workshop

participants showed hot- and coldspots for biodiversity more generally. Biodiversity in general (as

mapped by the workshop participants, right part of map 14) was seen to be negatively related to

agriculture and participants thus mainly marked non-agricultural areas which they regarded as most

natural as biodiversity hotspots. Agricultural areas were hence generally mapped as biodiversity

coldspots in the workshop. In contrast, agrobiodiversity is per definition linked to agricultural areas.

The two sets of maps thus have opposite focus and indicate different areas as important. Several of

the hotspots indicated by the workshop participants are thus located in the ‘lower’ 20% for

agrobiodiversity, whereas several coldspots identified in the workshop are within the central or

higher 20% areas for agrobiodiversity.

Map 13. Agrobiodiversity (species richness) (left) and species richness of farmland birds (right) based on EU level data

The EU level map most closely comparable to the hot- and coldspots mapped by the workshop

participants is that of habitat suitability for megafauna (left side of Map 14). While there is closer

correspondance for areas such as the Upper Deeside, there are still important differences in what

was mapped. Workshop participants for example also included coastal areas which are well-known

breeding areas for charismatic birds such as puffins. In contrast, intensive agricultural areas are

included in the EU level map as being in the central 60% of habitat suitable for megafauna, while

these areas were generally rated as coldspots by workshop participants. Again, the discrepancy is

most likely due to what species are considered with workshop participants focusing more on the

27

rare and charismatic as well as high biodiversity levels in general, and not on megafauna as such

which in Scotland includes many common species which are considered ‘problem species’ such as

deer, foxes and badgers (due toe their negative impacts on foresry and agriculture).

Map 14. Habitat suitability for megafauna (left) based on EU level data and biodiversity hot- and coldspots identified by worskhop participants (right)

Soil

The map based on EU-level data shows erosion prevention based on work by Pérez-Soba, Verburg

and Koomen (2010)3 (left part of map 15). In contrast, the map produced by workshop participants

shows hot- and coldspots for soil quality, problems and maintenance more generally. Hence, the two

maps show similarities and differences as their content is related though not identical. The EU-based

map identifies areas in the north/northeast portion of Aberdeenshire as areas with a high erosion

prevention capacity, presumably to the relatively level topography in this area. The same area was

pointed out as problem area in the local stakeholder map. This was linked to declining soil quality

linked to the conversion of land from grazing to intensively farmed crop land. Another point of

discrepancy concerns the Deeside and Cairngorm National Park area, which is classified, based on EU

downsized maps, as displaying average erosion prevention properties possibly due to its landscape

structure (altitude), while most of the Cairngorms National Park was by the stakeholders considered

to have good soil status due to the predominance of non-agricultural land use (and hence ‘natural’

3 Pérez-Soba M, Verburg PH, Koomen E. 2010. Land use modeling-implementation. Preserving and enhancing the environmental benefits of “land-use services”. Report to the European Commission DG Environment under contract No.07.0307/2008/511790/SER/G1. Wageningen, The Netherlands

28

or undisturbed nature of the soil). In both cases, these differences in maps can be explained by the

fact that good soil management as mapped by the workshop participants encompassed more than

just erosion control. When mapping soils hot- and coldspots workshop participants pointed out that

soil quality often varies over small distances, and with the geological and physical characteristics of

the specific site as well as on the practices of the individual farmer or forester. Hotspot areas were

indicated by stakeholders to be those with the best management practices, as well as wild areas, as

these are relatively untouched by human interaction. Coldspots, however, are found in areas

identified as most suitable for grazing/ grassland which have subsequently been transformed into

cropland. In both stakeholders and EU-based maps, lower erosion protection is pointed out in areas

with high ground sealing (e.g. Aberdeen city) and good soil conditions were identified in the south-

east of Aberdeenshire.

Map 15. Erosion Prevention in Aberdeenshire (left) based on EU level data and soil maintenance hot- and coldspots (right) identified by workshop participants

Water

The map based on EU level data shows flood regulation supply, while the map produced by local

stakeholders shows areas with issues of water quality as well as water quantity. The two maps are

therefore not directly comparable, though some of the same areas, such as the Deeside, are

29

highlighted in both maps. Based on Stürck et al. (2014)4 high capacity of flood regulation supply is

characterized by large patches of natural vegetation or extensive agriculture, which is the type of

land structure characterizing the Deeside. However, this area was one of the worst hit areas by the

2015/16 winter floods and flooding issues were also highlighted for this area by the workshop

participants. Cold spot areas are pointed out in both maps in the north-east and south-east of

Aberdeenshire. These are areas with intensive used farmland, less natural vegetation and

characterized by problems of water pollution.

Map 16. Flood Regulation Supply (left) based on EU level data and cold- and hotspots for water quality (right) identified by workshop participants

4 Stürck J, Poortinga A, Verburg PH. 2014. Mapping ecosystem services: The supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecological Indicators 38: 198211.

30

Carbon sequestration and climate mitgation

The EU-based map of carbon sequestration, based on work developed by Schulp, Nabuurs and

Verburg (2008) is in line with stakeholders-based maps for climate mitigation. Both maps show that

within Aberdeenshire there are hotspot areas of carbon sequestration within the borders of the

Cairngorms National Park and along the Dee River, where forests are abundant, and coldspot areas

in the north-east of Aberdeenshire especially due to intensive farmland practices. In fact, as

reported in Schulp et al. (2008)5, total carbon sequestration is mainly determined by the availability

of forests, the rate of emissions from cropland and deforestation and the small amounts of

sequestration in pastures and abandoned land.

Map 17. Carbon sequestration (left) based on EU level data and hot- and coldspots for climate mitigation (right) identified by workshop participants.

5 Schulp CJE, Nabuurs G-J, Verburg PH. 2008. Future carbon sequestration in Europe-Effect of land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 127:251-264.

Contract no. 633838

PROVIDE




Start date of project: 01 September 2015 Duration: 36 months


D3.2 - Report synthesizing the findings of the CSR level mapping of public good

demand and supply, its underlying determinants, producers and beneficiaries

CSR REPORT FINLAND

Organisation name of lead beneficiary for this document:

Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)

Authors: A. Juutinen, T. Hujala, R. Store, H. Parikka & M. Kurttila

Project funded by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 Programme (2014- 2020)

Dissemination Level

PU Public X

PP Restricted to other programme participants (Including the






PROVIDE CSR North Ostrobothnia

Content

1 Introduction and case study identification ......................................................................................... 3

2 Main maps available ........................................................................................................................... 4

3 Main maps commented ...................................................................................................................... 5

4 Main results of the questionnaire (descriptive average tables) .......................................................11

5 Implications .......................................................................................................................................14

6 Annex 1 – Hotspot description form .................................................................................................15



This document reports the outcomes of the mapping activities (tasks 3.3-3.4) and some tasks that

supported these activities for the Finnish case study region (CSR) North Ostrobothnia. For this

purpose, the availability of maps and datasets on the provision of Public Goods (and Bads) – PGs/PBs

– in the CSR was explored, with a special emphasis on use pressures (PG demand factors) from

recreation, tourism services, second homes, and visual sensitivity of the landscape. In particular, the

report discusses the most relevant PGs in the regional context, their producers and beneficiaries,

location of supply and demand. It also briefly examines the prime determinants affecting their

provision such as the role of public policy instruments and market-based mechanisms in the light of

the stakeholder survey results.

The report focuses on the PGs/PBs identified as the most relevant in the CSR by the stakeholders

participating to the first and second workshops of the Case Study Stakeholder Platform, which were

held on February 25th and June 14th, 2016 in Oulu, northern Finland.

The report firstly includes a description of the main issues characterizing the CSR itself, then an

overwiew of the available maps and datasets. Subsequently, the maps related to the most relevant

PGs/PBs are presented and commented from the viewpoint of factors affecting their provision.

Finally, the the report provides implications of the results of the mapping activities for the

identification of hotspots, as focus areas of research within the CSR in WPs 4-6, are explained.

The Finnish CSR is region “North Ostrobothnia” (Fig. 1), a sub-national administrative region in

northern Finland (NUTS3 FI1D6). The area has a surface of approx. 44.000 km2 and counts approx.

405.000 inhabitants. It contains 29 municipalities and 11 cities with Oulu as the capital. The share of

forest land in the region is 88%, and typical elements of landscape contain hill areas in the

northeastern part, rivers and river valleys in the western part, and flat peatland areas in the Center.

Figure 1 – Location and typical views of North Ostrobothnia.



In Finland, including the North Ostrobothnia CSR, detailed (20 x 20 m grid) spatial information on

forest resources, based on National Forest Inventory results, is openly available via the map service

of the Natural Resources Institute Finland, currently at http://kartta.luke.fi/index-en.html. In

addition, open spatial data from various sectors, including environmental, geological, and historical

datasets, are available at Paikkatietoikkuna [“Geographic Information Window”] service hub

(http://www.paikkatietoikkuna.fi/web/en/frontpage), maintained by the National Land Survey.

Relating more directly to PG supply, the PROVIDE D3.1 (Komossa et al. 2016) presents twelve

characteristics, for which maps are available in 1km resolution throughout EU27, including North

Ostrobothnia (see Fig. 3), thus allowing comparative analyses. These characteristics include Species

richness – separately for agrobiodiversity, farmland birds and vascular plants, carbon sequestration,

erosion prevention, flood regulation, megafauna, cultural landscape indices for agro and forest,

pollination visitation probability and flows, and nature tourism.

Regarding PG demand, geographical information exists to process and derive maps from the Finnish

CSR for various use pressure characteristics, such as recreation, tourism services, second homes, and

visual sensitivity of the landscape. This work has been carried out in some earlier projects (e.g. Store

et al. 20151), but the results and experiences support the activities of PROVIDE as well. In Kuusamo,

these use pressures relate particularly to the recreational use of forests and nature-based tourism,

and they can be served by smart delivery of landscape and recreational values as well as water

quality, which were the most relevant PGs in North Ostrobothnia according to the workshop

participants. In the following section, examples of the above PG/PB supply and demand maps are

presented both from the eastern part of the CSR, Ruka-Kuusamo and western part (south from Oulu).

Subsequently , these are discussed from the perspectives of hotspot selection, providers and

beneficiaries of PGs, and supporting governance mechanisms.

1 STORE, RON, KARJALAINEN, EEVA, HAARA, ARTO, LESKINEN, PEKKA, NIVALA, VESA. 2015. Producing a

sensitivity assessment method for visual forest landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 144: 128-141.

http://kartta.luke.fi/index-en.html

http://www.paikkatietoikkuna.fi/web/en/frontpage

https://research.luke.fi/crisyp/disp/6_/fi/cr_suorite/edi/edi/fet?id=4129200&verkko=1&cro=2623233321313833233730211920352330242721232118233622232528292838273822292738393739283727351836321717

https://research.luke.fi/crisyp/disp/6_/fi/cr_suorite/edi/edi/fet?id=4129200&verkko=1&cro=2623233321313833233730211920352330242721232118233622232528292838273822292738393739283727351836321717



In this section, maps concerning the level of provision of the EU27-comparable PGs in the Finnish CSR

are first presented, followed by an overlay map of the different PGs aiming to aid clarifying hotspot

areas within the CSR, which were initially identified in the first stakeholder workshop. Two main

hotspots initially identified were Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area (PG: forest landscape), and south-west

river valley and coastal area (PG: water quality).

Figure 2a – PG supply in the Finnish CSR area (source: PROVIDE D3.1; Komossa et al. 2016), part a.


Figure 2b – PG supply in the Finnish CSR area (source: PROVIDE D3.1; Komossa et al. 2016); part b.

Fig. 2 above shows that indeed, stakeholders’ perception of the PG supply for nature tourism in the

Ruka-Kuusamo area (the northern corner of the CSR) gets support from the map data. That area is

also relatively rich in terms of forest cultural landscape. To summarize, researching the provision of

landscape and recreational values in more detail Ruka-Kuusamo hotspot area appears reasonable.

The other suggested hotspot area, the coastal area and river valleys in the south-west of the CSR, is

in the maps notably rich in pollination, agro landscape, vascular plants, and erosion prevention.

These mapped features have only indirect links to water quality, which was considered the important

PG in the area, affected by intenstive agriculture. The learning here is that in the south-west hotspot

area, multiple-PG provision may be worth investigating.


Figure 3 – Overlay of different PGs in North Ostrobothnia.

Figure 3 above shows that when overlaying the number of different PGs (among the 12 in Fig. 2) with

high supply in one figure, the potential multi-PG hotspots can be located in a few areas within North

Ostrobothnia. On one hand, the Ruka-Kuusamo area in the north and the river valley are in the south

can be distinguished. On the other hand, there are interesting hotspot candidates in the south of

Ruka-Kuusamo and in the middle of the CSR map. Taken the very high nature-based tourism and thus

PG demand pressure, Ruka-Kuusamo can however be delianed as a smaller PG hotspot. The high

supply zones in the centre of the map may in turn be considered to be included in the river valley

hotspot as those areas mainly follow the rivers and are close to highly populated places.

There exist information also for water quality, which was voted among the most important PGs by

regional stakeholders. The Finnish Environment Institute is publishing through a nationwide service

maps that illustrate the water quality of lakes, rivers and the sea

(http://paikkatieto.ymparisto.fi/vesikartta/). The map service can be zoomed to region and even to

water system-level and it offers information on the properties of the mapped water systems. Figure

4 illustrates the properties of this map service. From figure it can be seen that the condition of river

and sea waters near the case study region is good or moderate and clearly better if compared to

situation e.g. in South-East Finland sea area. However, also locally poor quality river waters can be

seen from the more detailed map from the area located south from the city of Oulu. It can be that

these poor quality water quality rise negative opinions and pressures to improve the situation.

http://paikkatieto.ymparisto.fi/vesikartta/


Figure 4 – Water map from Southern Finland (left) showing the water quality and ecological status and more detailed map on the western part of the North Ostrobotnia CSR (right) area. Orange and red colours indicate poor quality river waters.

Fig. 5 below shows the location of the Kuusamo city, which is the suggested focus area for studying

landscape and recreational values as PGs and how forestry affects them. Figure 6 (a-d) shows the

selected demand factors of these PGs, namely recreation, tourism services, second homes, and the

overall visual sensitivity of the landscape (based on the work by Store et al. 2015).

Figure 5 – Index map of Kuusamo, the landscape and recreational values hotspot.


a) Use pressure from outdoor recreation in Kuusamo. b) Use pressure from tourism services in Kuusamo.

c) Use pressure from second homes in Kuusamo d) Visual sensitivity of landscape in Kuusamo.

Figure 6. Indications on the demand of PGs related to recreation and landscapes in Kuusamo. The “mini-hotspots” in the maps show the location of the Kuusamo city (in the middle part of the map) and the location of the tourism resort Ruka (northern mini-hotspot). Visual sensitivity of the landscape is a generic indicator based on the demand and supply factors and described in detail by Store et al. (2015).


Fig. 6a demonstrates the concentration of hiking/skiing routes as well as local population centre and

conservation areas in Ruka-Kuusamo. The map also illustrates that the outdoor recreation pressures

are scattered next to the main lakes of the region and that the large natural park in the north is well

connected from the Ruka skiing resort.

In Fig. 6b the high concentration of major tourism services next to the Ruka skiing resort and to the

centre of Kuusamo city in the middle of the area become evident. However, several tourism services

and places offering e.g. cottage accommodation can be found elsewhere from Kuusamo due to rich

nature and existence of protection areas that are worth visiting. In addition, one should note that

this map only shows the accommodation locations, while the organized tourism activities may be

scattered in the landscape along the hiking/skiing routes and special locations offered by the tourism

entrepreneurs.

Fig. 6c above shows that there are a lot of second homes (summer/winter cottages) around and

between the Ruka skiing resort and Kuusamo city centre, constituting high use pressure for

landscape and recreational values in these areas and also next to the roads that are used to arrive to

these places. It is also notable that many cottages can be found along the shores of the main lakes,

meaning that the use pressures are scattered widely within Kuusamo, as illurstrated by the

numerous small red dots on the map.

Fig. 6d shows, as a result of geographical analysis (Store et al. 2015), how sensitive the visual

landscape is to changes. The sensitivity index is a product of various factors (based on GIS data and

analyses) that were prioritized with multi-criteria based approach. The main factors comprise

visibility, use pressure, and attractiveness of the scenery as the main criteria. The map shows higher

index values around the Ruka ski resort, Kuusamo city centre and along the main roads to

neighbouring cities and to the national park. Relatively high landscape sensitivity can also be found

around the lakes.


4 Main results of the questionnaire (descriptive average tables)

Figure 9 – The best description for the concept of public goods according to the Finnish respondents (n=9).

Figure 10 – The average importance of PGs in North Ostrobothnia CSR according to the Finnish respondents (n=9).

PROVIDE CSR North Ostrobothnia Table 1 – Perception by the Finnish respondents of which factors contribute to the provision of public goods.

Table 2 – Perception by the Finnish respondents of where public goods are mainly provided in the CSR.

Table 3 – Perception by the Finnish respondents of the main issues concerning PGs in general.

Public goods

PGs are direct results

of land management

by farmers and

foresters complying

with the

environmental

regulations

PGs are direct

result of

agriculture and

forestry fostered by

CAP funding

PGs are direct result

of the increasing

pressure and control

exerted by society on

farmers and

foresters


of market demand

for healthier, more

sustainable

agricultural and

forestry products


of technological

advancement and

innovation in

agriculture and

forestry

Landscape and scenery 3 3 1 1 1

Farmland biodiversity 7 5 1 2 0

Water quality and availability 7 5 3 1 3

Air quality 2 2 1 1 3

Soil functionality 3 1 1 1 2

Climate stability 2 1 2 1 2

Resilience to flooding and fire 3 0 1 0 1

Rural viability and vitality 2 2 1 1 3

Production quality and security 3 1 2 6 3

Animal health and welfare 5 1 5 5 4

Public goods

On the

riversides

and river

valleys

Hilly

areas

Mountain

areas

Plain

areas

Specific

production

areas

Meadow

and

pasture

areas

Areas with

cultural and

historical

values

Almost

homoge-

neously

widespread

Forest and

woodlands

Landscape and scenery 7 5 0 5 3 6 6 1 8

Farmland biodiversity 6 0 0 4 2 6 1 1 0

Water quality and availability 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 4

Air quality 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

Soil functionality 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 3

Climate stability 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 5

Resilience to flooding and fire 4 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 5

Rural viability and vitality 4 0 0 5 2 3 2 1 5

Production quality and security 3 0 0 4 1 1 0 3 3

Animal health and welfare 1 0 0 3 2 4 0 2 3

Public goods

PGs are stil l

theoretical concepts,

society has no

perception of the

role of farmers and

foresters as land

managers

Inadequate

funding for

compensation of

farmers and

foresters adopting

sustainable

practices

Conflicts of

interests and

uses between

different

stakeholders

Development

and trade-offs

between

different land

uses

Problems

related to the

urban

sprawling,

rural land

abandonment

Public access

to public

goods; land

tenure and

property

issues

Landscape and scenery 4 5 7 4 2 4

Farmland biodiversity 3 5 3 3 0 0

Water quality and availability 3 5 6 4 0 2

Air quality 3 3 1 0 0 1

Soil functionality 5 4 0 1 0 0

Climate stability 6 4 3 3 0 1

Resilience to flooding and fire 5 4 3 2 0 2

Rural viability and vitality 2 4 3 2 5 1

Production quality and security 3 2 2 0 2 0

Animal health and welfare 1 2 6 1 0 1

PROVIDE CSR North Ostrobothnia Table 4 – Main motivations of farmers and foresters to manage the land for the provision of PGs according to the Finnish stakeholders.

Table 5 – The Finnish respondents’ opinion on which mechanisms could be used to increase the provision of PGs.

Public goods

Compliance

with

regulations

(e.g. land-use

restrictions,

nuisance

taxes)

Desire of

preserving their

own health and

increasing their

working

conditions and

life quality

Market

demand for

high quality

and

sustainable

products (e.g.

local products)

Receiving

advantages for

their activities from

the provision of

PGs (e.g. marketing

through landscape

improvement)

CAP (Common

Agricultural

Policy) direct

payments and

other

incentives

CAP support to

farmers and

foresters

trough Rural

Development

Plans

Landscape and scenery 5 3 2 2 4 4

Farmland biodiversity 3 1 1 0 7 6

Water quality and availability 7 3 1 1 6 7

Air quality 2 2 0 1 2 2

Soil functionality 3 1 1 0 3 3

Climate stability 3 1 2 0 3 3

Resilience to flooding and fire 3 1 0 0 2 2

Rural viability and vitality 2 5 0 1 4 5

Production quality and security 6 2 4 1 4 3

Animal health and welfare 6 2 4 1 4 3

Public goods

Increase

financial

support to

farmers and

foresters

Implement

payments for

environmental

services (PES)

Implement

new market-

based

incentives

Promote

farmers’ and

foresters’

education to

sustainability

Adapt

compensation

schemes and

regulations to

the global

market

Adopt

more

efficient

land use

plans

Pioneer/foster

cross-

compliance in

all public

subsidies

Landscape and scenery 6 5 5 3 1 4 3

Farmland biodiversity 6 6 2 6 2 2 3

Water quality and availability 7 4 4 6 2 3 3

Air quality 3 2 2 3 1 3 3

Soil functionality 3 3 1 5 2 2 2

Climate stability 3 5 3 3 4 1 2

Resilience to flooding and fire 3 2 1 3 1 3 3

Rural viability and vitality 3 4 4 3 3 3 2

Production quality and security 2 2 6 5 3 1 2

Animal health and welfare 2 5 5 5 3 1 3


5 Implications

Various different maps are available for the CSR. Due to backgrounds of researhcers and also

the participating stakeholders (some of them come from Kuusamo area), forest related

information (maps), forest management as a main factor affecting the supply or demand of

PGs/PBs is emphasized.

In the questionnaire results, landscape and water quality related factors are often

emphasized by respondents.

Demand factors (use-pressures) seem to be particularly helpful to locate hotspots and are

needed to examine the mishmatches.

Tourists, tourism entrepreneurs and cottage owners are relevant beneficiaries and study

objects with respect both PGs (recreation and landscape, and water quality) recognized and

in both potential hotspot sub-areas.

Regulations are useful, but PES and market-based instruments are increasingly demanded

Due to earlier research projects, the Kuusamo area is strongly emphasized by

stakeholders. The earlier experiences and existing results provide synergies for selecting

the Ruka-Kuusamo for the main hotspot area.

Water quality may be an issue locally within the CSR, and thus some of the smaller River

Valleys south from Oulu can be suitable (secondary) hotspots.


6 Annex 1 – Hotspot description form

Number FI-1 FI-2

Country/region Finland/North Ostrobothnia Finland/North Ostrobothnia

Sub-area North-east hill area (Ruka-Kuusamo) South-west river valley and coastal area

Title Forest landscapes and nature-based

tourism

Water pollution from agriculture

Story (description) Forest landscape is important for

nature-based tourism and visitors in

the area, but given everyman’s

rights, the forest owner will not get

compensated for the provision of

recreational environments and lacks

an incentive to take the landscape

and recreation into account in forest

management beyond his/her own

benefits thereof.

The southern part of the North

Ostrobothnia is widely used for agricultural

production (milk and beef, in particular).

Consequently, the south-west river valley

and coastal areas suffer from water quality

degradation.

Mix of goods (list

relevant goods and bads;

public/private) involved,

under/overprovision,

trends

Public: forest landscape,

recreational opportunities including

a large set of different outdoor

activities, biodiversity, carbon

sequestration

Private: wood production, tourism

Public: water quality degradation,

recreation

Private: food production

Causes of mismatch

between demand and

supply

Due everyman’s right the demand

for beautiful landscape and

recreation is high, but forest

harvesting reduces the supply.

Especially large-scale clearcutting

and site preparation for artificial

regeneration have a negative effect

on the quality of landscape

Natural conditions are suitable for livestock

productions and associated arable farming.

Hence there is a need for intensive

spreading of manure which causes nutrient

loading to the rivers in the area. The

population density is higher than average in

the region along the rivers and on the

coast, and therefore, there is a relatively

high demand for water quality (drinking

water, recreation) in these areas. In

addition, the riversides are typical places

for leisure homes.

Motivation (results of

W3)

Local: High emphasis given by CS-SP

EU: the EU level mapping showed

that this area is a hotspot regarding

many public goods provided by

forests; likely similar issue in a

number of areas in EU that are

important for nature-based tourism

Local: High emphasis given by CS-SP,

perhaps, in response to the high political

attention at EU level.

EU: likely similar issue in a number of

productive areas


Valuation issues (WP4) Market: lost profit of wood

production, tourism income

Non market: what is the visitor’s

demand (willingness-to-pay) for the

forest landscape and what is the

potential supply (forest owner’s

reservation price)?


valuation of public goods

(available/suitable)

(WP4)

Stated and revealed preference

methods to evaluate demand;

stated preference methods to

evaluate potential supply

Stated and revealed preference methods

for water quality; remediation costs;

forgone income

Mechanism design issues

(WP5)

Landscape and Recreational Values

Trading (LRVT) is a new innovative

approach to ensure provision of

public goods in areas that are

important for nature-based tourism.


evaluation of

appropriate governance

strategies

(available/suitable)

(WP5)

Valuation methods, cost-efficiency

analysis

Theoretical/conceptual

issues (WP6)

Decision

making/information

needs (WP6)

Contract no. 633838

PROVIDE




Start date of project: 01 September 2015 Duration: 36 months


D3.2 - Report synthesizing the findings of the CSR level mapping of public good demand and

supply, its underlying determinants, producers and beneficiaries

CSR REPORT ESTONIA

Organisation name of lead beneficiary for this document:

Tallinn University - TLU

Authors: A.Keskpaik, S.Lassur, E.Terk, K.Tafel-Viia,

Project funded by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 Programme (2014- 2020)

Dissemination Level

PU Public X

PP Restricted to other programme participants (Including the






PROVIDE CSR Harju County

Content

Content ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1 Introduction and case study identification ........................................................................................................ 3

2 Main maps available .......................................................................................................................................... 5

3 Main maps commented ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Est-1: Public good underprovision due to agricultural land abandonment and underuse6

3.1.2 Est- 2: Public good underprovision due to intensive forest management ...................... 7

4 Main results of the questionnaire (descriptive average tables) ........................................................................ 9

5 Annex 1 – Hotspot description form ............................................................................................................... 17

6 Annex 2 – List of maps available ...................................................................................................................... 18



This document is a presentation of tasks 3.3 and 3.4 of the PROVIDE project. In this introduction we provide a

short description of the Estonian CSR, Harju County. In section 2, an overview of the available maps related to

public goods and bads provided by agriculture and forestry is given. Section 3 is devoted to commenting some

maps that seem to be the most important in the light of hotspots chosen for Harju County. Section 4 includes

the results of project stakeholders' representatives’ poll. Section 5 presents general conclusions of the work

done.

Harju County is the largest province of Estonia as to the population (576,265 people – 46 % of total population,

in 2016) and the second largest as to the total area (4,333 km²). Harju County includes the capital city of

Tallinn and its surrounding municipalities. The majority of population lives in the capital and other urban

municipalities. Urban sprawl is taking place around Tallinn along the main roads and the seacoast. A number of

former summer cottage areas are in change to places of permanent living too. 116,000 people live in rural

municipalities, which is more than 25% of the total rural population of Estonia. However, quite few of them

are employed in farming.

Figure 1. Harju County

Source: Eesti Entsüklopeedia

The primary production (agriculture, fisheries, forestry) provided 2.6 thousand jobs that made 0.8% of all

employment in the county (2015). It gave only 0.7% of the regional added value of Harju County (2014).

Almost 90% of land is outside urban settlements in rural use in Harju County. There are about 223,000 ha of

forestland (10% of national total) and 70,000 ha of agricultural land in use (7% of national total). The forest

coverage is 51%.

PROVIDE CSR Harju County There is a number of territories under more or less severe protection or officially defined as valuable in Harju

County. In the eastern and western border regions, there are nature conservation areas and nature parks. In

the north-east, the Lahemaa National Park includes part of the coastal area. NATURA 2000 network sites are

numerous. Rebala Heritage Reserve (70 km2) is situated east of Tallinn. The county physical planning

documents define 33 valuable landscapes and 30 valuable traditional landscapes. In addition, the large part of

forests around the capital and its coastal hinterland are defined as the Tallinn’s green belt – the nearest

recreation area for urban population.

Harju County is a region where the vast majority of population has no personal connection with rural

production but is quite sensitive about the recreational, esthetical and cultural heritage features of the rural

and natural environment surrounding the settlements. Therefore, not surprisingly agricultural land

abandonment and too intense forest management has been chosen the hotspot issues of the public goods and

bads provision by the primary production.



In the light of PROVIDE’s main goal – to develop governance mechanisms for local economies that are

implementable in locally differentiated way, only maps detailed enough deserve attention.

Public web map servers and applications are the main places where maps that are detailed enough and

updated regularly can be found. From the PROVIDE’s viewpoint, maps with several relevant indicators can be

found in: the Estonian Land Board (ELB) Web Map Server (various applications), Estonian Agricultural Registers

and Information Board (ARIB) web map, Environment Agency’s public web service of forest register and web

maps of water bodies. Some other sources of relevant maps can be added: the State Forest Management

Centre web map application of nature tourism destinations, the spatial plan for Harju County „ Environmental

Conditions Framing Settlement and Land Use“ defines valuable landscapes and also some maps produced in

the framework of assessment of local governments competitiveness are available.

More cartographic information about relevant indicators is available about surface and ground waters, soils,

nature protection, land and forest use. However, from the PROVIDE’s viewpoint, a number of relevant aspects

of specific goods/bads are purely covered with indicators. At the same time, e.g no suitable maps for

biodiversity are available. Generally, availability of maps that are suitable for providing systematic and

comprehensive information about producing public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry or specific

drivers influencing those processes is quite limited in Estonia. The level of reflection of different goods/bads is

uneven. Details of maps availability is provided in Annex 2.

As input of task 3.1, a number of EU level maps were also identified to be used in case of missing information

at the local level, or as integrating materials. With respect to the European context, Harju County appears to

be characterized by a relatively high agrobiodiversity, carbon sequestration, erosion prevention and habitat

suitability for megafauna. At the same time, a number of other indicators relating to e.g. farmland birds

biodiversity, flood regulation, cultural heritage, pollinator habitats, nature tourism and wild food provisioning

are rather modest. It all seems reasonable, taking into account its geographical situation, plain terrain,

relatively high share of forests and fragmented agricultural land use. However, it seems that the European

level differentiation scale of indicators is not the best for maps aimed to support designing local governance

instruments. For effective local implementation of maps the differentiation scales used for indicators should

be adapted to reflect local variations of public goods/bads and their drivers because the goods/bads in focus

of PROVIDE are consumed at the local level by local population mainly.



In this section maps and statistics concerning both the level of provision of public goods/bads and potential

drivers of provision are presented focusing on the hotspots identified. Two main hotspots are chosen for Harju

County: public good underprovision due to agricultural land abandonment and underuse; public good

underprovision due to intensive forest management.

3.1.1 Est-1: Public good underprovision due to agricultural land abandonment and underuse

Harju County is among regions with the largest share of unused agricultural land - an estimated 32% (31,300

hectares) of arable land and permanent grassland was out of agricultural use in 2013. Detailed spread of the

hotspot (quadrates of 400x400 m = 16 ha) is illustrated only by one map (Fig 2). The map shows the variation

of area of abandoned land in quadrates from 0 ha (blue) to 6 and more ha (red).

Figure 2. Abandoned agricultural land, 2013

Source: Vohu,V. Kasutusest väljas oleva põllumajandusmaa ressurss, struktuur ja paiknemine.2014.

Abandonment of agricultural land brings along decreasing of some public bads - surface and groundwater

pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Decreases in the availability of some public goods take place too.

Open agricultural landscape disappears, degradation of soil fertility may take place, real estate development

destroys soil, fire safety of the landscape decreases and high nature value farmland suffers from decreasing of

PROVIDE CSR Harju County natural diversity. In places with valuable rural cultural landscape heritage decrease of the cultural and touristic

value of landscape takes place.

Most of those changes are not reflected in GIS and it is even not reasonable to monitor all of them

cartographically. We have maps of water bodies status that are updated periodically. Status of soils changes

too slowly. Unfortunately, esthetical, cultural and tourism values of landscapes as well as agrobiodiversity are

not monitored and mapped systematically.

In fact, we do not have detailed cartographical maps of the main hypothetical drivers of agricultural land

abandonment. It is probably also not rational to monitor drivers like rent prices, property and rent relations,

real estate development etc with such maps, because the data is hard to collect and it also changes too

quickly.

3.1.2 Est- 2: Public good underprovision due to intensive forest management

Substantial part of forests in Harju County have achieved maturity which means that large part of the forests

will go under cutting in the coming 10 years. Partly due to pressure towards more effective and intensive

forest management and partly also due to the species composition of forest (e.g. spruce wood) the most

reasonable cutting method is clear cutting. Clear cutting near settlements and tourism destinations and some

other sensitive places generates conflicts with local people and businesses.

Figure 3. Potentially conflict causing future cutting areas of State Forest Management Centre in Saku

municipality

Source: Metoodika lageraiete mõju hindamiseks ja konfliktide ennetamiseks maastiku tasandil, arvestades sotsiaalseid,

majanduslikke ja ökoloogilisi aspekte, 2015

PROVIDE CSR Harju County So far, potential conflict places have been mapped only in some municipalities, no such comprehensive map of

Harju County exists. Figure 3 presents such places (in violet) in Saku municipality bordering Tallinn.

The most important public bads brought along by clear cutting are: decrease of recreational possibilities and

the variety of recreational/nature tourism services, deterioration of living environment, decrease of ecological

diversity as well landscape value in esthetical/cultural terms and decrease in protection from noise and

pollution. We do not have respective maps and obviously they will not be available for many indicators

reflecting those bads.

At the same time, we have maps reflecting some hypothetical drivers of cutting: e.g., possible wood

regeneration cut parcels, protection regimes (NATURA 2000). However, most potential drivers (cut parcels,

owners structure etc) are not observed with detailed cartographic methods and it would be not necessary, nor

rational as the information is hard to collect and changing quickly.


4 Main results of the questionnaire (descriptive average tables)

The questionnaire was translated into Estonian. It was uploaded to the ‘google forms’ format. Questionnaire

was anonymous. Most of the answers were still gathered in the end of the second stakeholder workshop.

Alltogether 9 respondents answered the questionnaire. Hereinafter the descriptive average tables are given

according to the questions in the questionnaire.

Type of institution

%

business 2 22,2 local government 1 11,1 NGO 2 22,2 state government, ministry 4 44,4 Total 9 100,0

Field of expertise

%

agriculture 3 33,3 environment 1 11,1 forestry 4 44,4 local entrepreneurship 1 11,1 Total 9 100,0

1.1. Which of the following definitions best describes the concept of Public Goods (PGs)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

All services delivered by agriculture which are not directly marketable

1 11,1 11,1 11,1

Any non-rivalrous and non-excludable good or service provided by agro-ecosystems

2 22,2 22,2 33,3

Both direct and undirect impacts that agricultural activities has on population

1 11,1 11,1 44,4

no answer 2 22,2 22,2 66,7

PGs are common property belonging to all accordingly

3 33,3 33,3 100,0

Total 9 100,0 100,0

1.2. Grade the importance in your region of each of the following PGs provided by agriculture:

Barrier effect of forests: protection from noise, pollutants and dust in urban and semi-urban areas 7,778

Recreational areas 7,556

Rural Vitality (creation of rural jobs) 7,556

Food Security (local supply of food) 7,222

Water Quality 7,111

Wild food production (mushrooms,forest berries, asparagus, game) 6,778

Tranquility and well-being (calm and peaceful living areas; holistic living environments) 6,667

Water availability 6,444

Intangible heritage (agricultural landscape; forestry scenery and paths, cultural/historical heritage) 6,333

Farmland biodiversity (animal and vegetal) 6,222

Soil Conservation and soil functionality 6,222

Resilience to Flooding and Fire 6,222

Farm animal welfare and animal health 6,111

Tangible heritage (traditional farming activities 6,000

Air Quality 5,889

Agro-ecological infrastructures (e.g. buffer strips) 5,778

Climate change mitigation (e.g. carbon sequestration) 5,222


1.3. Are the PGs in the region a direct result of land management or are they unintended by-products or are they due to factors other than agricultural activities?

PGs are direct results of land management by farmers complying with the environmental regulations. Unintended by products are only soil conservation and land maintenance

PGs are direct result of agriculture fostered by CAP funding (e.g building of agro-ecological infrastructures)

PGs are direct result of the increasing pressure and control exerted by society on farmers to practice a more sustainable agriculture

PGs are direct result of market demand for healthier, more sustainable agricultural products

PGs are direct result of technological advancement and innovation in agriculture

Recreational areas 12,5 12,5 12,5 50,0 12,5

Tranquility and well-being

25,0 12,5 25,0 25,0 12,5

Farmland biodiversity

12,5 25,0 37,5

25,0

Agro-ecological infrastructures

12,5 50,0 12,5

25,0

Water Quality and availability

12,5 12,5 62,5 12,5

Soil Conservation and soil functionality

50,0 25,0 25,0

Climate change mitigation

25,0 25,0 12,5 12,5 25,0

Air quality 12,5 12,5 25,0 12,5 37,5

Resilience to Flooding and fire

37,5 25,0 12,5

25,0

Rural Vitality 12,5 37,5 12,5 25,0 12,5

Food security (local supply of food) and wild food production

50,0 12,5 25,0 12,5

Farm animal welfare and animal health

50,0 12,5 12,5 25,0

Barrier effects of forests

25,0 12,5 37,5 12,5 12,5

Traditional farming practices, varieties and food (tangible heritage)

25,0 25,0 25,0

25,0

Aesthetic/cultural/historical heritage (intangible heritage)

25,0 25,0 25,0 12,5 12,5

Wild food production

37,5 12,5

50,0

1.4. Where are the PGs related to agriculture located in your region? (Are the PGs connected to specific elements of the landscape?)

Almost homogeneously widespread

PROVIDE CSR Harju County Recreational areas 77,8

Tranquility and well-being 66,7

Farmland biodiversity 77,8

Agro-ecological infrastructures 88,9

Water Quality and availability 77,8

Soil Conservation and soil functionality 88,9

Climate change mitigation 100,0

Air quality 100,0

Resilience to Flooding and fire 77,8

Rural Vitality 100,0


100,0

Farm animal welfare and animal health 66,7

Barrier effects of forests 77,8


88,9


66,7

Wild food production 88,9

1.5. What are the main issues concerning PGs general? (on the supply side and on the demand side)

PGs are still theoretical concepts, society has no perception of the role of farmers as land managers

Inadequate funding for compensation of farmers practicing sustainable agriculture

Conflicts of interests and uses between different stakeholders in the context of land management and difficulties to implement land management regulations

Development and land use choices in certain regions (e.g. tourism vs agriculture; or loss of traditional agricultural practices)

Problems related to the urban sprawling and agricultural land abandonment (land and infrastructure maintenance)

Public access to public goods, the issue of land tenure and rights

Recreational areas 37,5 25 37,5

Tranquility and well-being 12,5 25,0 25,0 25,0 12,5

Farmland biodiversity 12,5 25,0 12,5 25,0 25,0

Agro-ecological infrastructures 62,5 12,5 25

Water Quality and availability 37,5 25,0 25,0 12,5

Soil Conservation and soil functionality 25,0 12,5 12,5 37,5 12,5

Climate change mitigation 25,0 12,5 12,5 12,5 37,5

Air quality 37,5 12,5 12,5 12,5 12,5 12,5

Resilience to Flooding and fire 50,0 25,0 12,5 12,5

Rural Vitality 12,5 25,0 12,5

12,5 37,5


37,5 37,5

12,5

12,5

Farm animal welfare and animal health 37,5 25,0 25,0 12,5

Barrier effects of forests 12,5 37,5 37,5 12,5


25,0 37,5

25,0

12,5


37,5

12,5

12,5 37,5

Wild food production 25,0 12,5 12,5 50,0


1.6. What are the main motivations to manage the land for the provision of PGs for private land-owners?

Compliance with regulations (e.g. land-use restrictions, nuisance taxes)

Desire of preserving their own health and increasing their working conditions and life quality

Market demand for high quality and sustainable products (e.g. local products)

Receiving advantages for their activities from the provision of PGs (e.g. marketing through landscape improvement)

CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) direct payments and other incentives

CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) support to farmers trough Rural Development Plans



Farmland biodiversity 14,3 57,1 28,6

Agro-ecological infrastructures 14,3 42,9 42,9

Water Quality and availability 14,3 28,6 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3

Soil Conservation and soil functionality 12,5 12,5 25,0 25,0 25,0


Air quality 14,3 28,6 14,3 14,3 28,6

Resilience to Flooding and fire 12,5 12,5 12,5 50,0 12,5

Rural Vitality 25,0 25,0 12,5 37,5


12,5 25,0 25,0

12,5 25,0

Farm animal welfare and animal health 37,5 25,0 25,0 12,5

Barrier effects of forests 42,9 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3


12,5

12,5 12,5 25,0 37,5


14,3 28,6 14,3 42,9

Wild food production 25,0 12,5 12,5 12,5 37,5


1.7. What mechanisms could be used to improve the provision of PGs?

Increase financial support to farmers

Implement payments for environmental services (PES)

Implement new market-based incentives

Promote farmers' education to sustainability

Adapt compensation schemes and regulations to the global market

Adopt more efficient land use plans (fees, restrictions, recommendations)

Pioneer cross-compliance in all public subsidies



Farmland biodiversity 44,4 11,1 44,4

Agro-ecological infrastructures

55,6 11,1

22,2 11,1

Water Quality and availability 33,3 22,2 11,1 11,1 22,2

Soil Conservation and soil functionality

33,3 11,1

33,3

22,2


Air quality 11,1 11,1 11,1 11,1 55,6

Resilience to Flooding and fire 22,2 11,1 11,1 11,1 44,4

Rural Vitality 22,2 11,1 11,1 55,6


44,4 11,1

11,1

33,3

Farm animal welfare and animal health

44,4 11,1

11,1

33,3

Barrier effects of forests 33,3 22,2 44,4


33,3 11,1

55,6


44,4 11,1

11,1

11,1 22,2

Wild food production 33,3 22,2 11,1 33,3

2.1. Grade the importance in you region of each of the following Public Bads(PBs) related to agriculture:

Loss of traditional landscape due to the abandonment of old agricultural practices

6,222

Biodiversity losses(extinction of wild species and habitats, simplification of cropping patterns in intensive agriculture)

5,222

Water pollution by intensive agriculture and livestock (e.g. nutrients and pesticides)

5,222

Depletion of water resources (e.g. due to irrigation in water stressed areas)

3,222

Climate degradation (e.g. carbon release after harvesting) 4,444

Air pollution by intensive agriculture and livestock (e.g. increase of greenhouse gas emissions)

4,222

Soil erosion (due to intensive agricultural practices) 4,667


2.2. Are the PBs in the region a direct result of land management or are they unintended by-products or are they due to factors other than agricultural activities?

PBs are mostly unintended by-products from agricultural activities, PBs are direct result of agriculture only when farmers do not comply with the law and the environmental regulations

PBs are never a direct result of agriculture (not even intensive), which do not intend to pollute the environment or to damage the society

PBs are a direct result of land management choices exerted by land-owners (e.g. practising intensive agriculture)

PBs are a consequence of the absence of adequate compensation schemes to farmers

PBs are caused by the rising land-abandonment in rural areas

PBs emerge from the competition between regions/ countries forcing farmers to lower the sustainability of productions


33,3

11,1 44,4 11,1


12,5 12,5 25,0 12,5 25,0 12,5


37,5 12,5 25,0

12,5 12,5


37,5 25,0 12,5 12,5 12,5

Climate degradation (e.g. carbon release after harvesting)

25,0 50,0

12,5 12,5


37,5 25,0 25,0

12,5

Soil erosion (due to intensive agricultural practices)

50,0 12,5 12,5

12,5 12,5


2.3. Where are the PBs related to agriculture located in your region? (Are the PBs connected to specific elements of the landscape?

On the riversides and river valleys

Hilly areas

Mountain areas

Plain areas

Specific production areas (e.g.: wine producing areas)

Meadow and pasture areas

Areas with both cultural and historical values

Almost homogeneously widespread

Loss of traditional landscape due to the abandonment of old agricultural practices 12,5 87,5

Biodiversity losses(extinction of wild species and habitats, simplification of cropping patterns in intensive agriculture) 25 75


25,0 25 50

Depletion of water resources (e.g. due to irrigation in water stressed areas) 25 12,5 55,6

Climate degradation (e.g. carbon release after harvesting) 25 75

Air pollution by intensive agriculture and livestock (e.g. increase of greenhouse gas emissions) 37,5 62,5

Soil erosion (due to intensive agricultural practices) 12,5 25 62,5

2.4. What are the main issues concerning PBs general? (on the supply side and on the demand side)

PGs are still theoretical concepts, society has no perception of the role of farmers s as land managers

Inadequate funding for compensation of farmers practicing sustainable agriculture

Conflicts of interests and uses between different stakeholders in the context of land management and difficulties to implement land management regulations

Development and land use choices in certain regions (e.g. tourism vs agriculture; or loss of traditional agricultural practices)

Problems related to the urban sprawling and agricultural land abandonment (land and infrastructure maintenance)

Public access to public goods, the issue of land tenure and rights


44,4

11,1 33,3 11,1


12,5 25,0 37,5

25,0


12,5 25,0 37,5

25,0


25,0 12,5 37,5

25,0


50,0

12,5 25,0 12,5


50,0

12,5 12,5 25,0


12,5 12,5 37,5 12,5 12,5 12,5

PROVIDE CSR Harju County 2.5. What mechanisms could be used to reduce the provision of PBs?

Increase financial

support to farmers

Implement payments

for environment

al services (PES)

Implement new market-

based incentives

Promote farmers'

education to sustainability

Adapt compensation schemes and regulations to

the global market

Adopt more efficient land

use plans (fees, restrictions,

recommendations)

Pioneer cross-

compliance in all public subsidies


12,5 25,0

62,5


25,0

25,0

12,5 37,5


12,5 25,0 37,5

25,0


12,5 12,5 25,0

37,5 12,5


12,5 12,5 25,0

25,0 25,0


12,5 12,5 25,0

25,0 25,0


12,5 12,5 12,5 25,0

25,0 12,5


5 Annex 1 – Hotspot description form

Number EST-1 EST-2

Country/region Estonia, Harju county Estonia, Harju county

Sub-area Western-Harju; Rebala; Vaida Nearby larger residential areas (Aegviidu, Kuusalu, Saku, Kolga)

Title Public good underprovision due to agricultural land abandonment and underuse

Public good underprovision due to intensive forest management (clear-cutting)

Story (description) The agricultural activities in Harju county region have decreased a lot in last 40 years. Therefore a lot of agricultural land is out of use and covered with the brushwood. It is on the one had bad for agricultural scenery and rural viability, less local food, also the risk of wild fire is higher. Another thing is that lot of previous agricultural land has become the industrial or residential areas. This has also an impact on scenery, agricultural biodiversity and rural viability in the region. On the other side the decrease in agricultural activities have improved the water quality.

It is much cheaper to manage forest with machines instead of people, and therefore the trend of clear-cutting is very strong. Very many forests next to residential areas have reached their maturity and need to be managed. People lose their recreational possibilities in the nearby forests.

Mix of goods (list relevant goods and bads; public/private) involved, under/overprovision, trends

Public: landscape quality, rural viability, local food, agricultural biodiversity, water quality, cultural heritage

Private: food production, tourism (showing the cows and farm life etc)

Public: forest landscape, recreation, hiking routes, fresh air, wild animal trajectories etc

Private: forest management, tourism (hiking, riding, hunting etc)

Causes of mismatch between demand and supply

Unused and abandoned land decreases the rural viability, local food (which are increasingly demanded by the nearby city inhabitants). Agricultural small production is not profitable; no people in the countryside.

People don’t like the clear-cut areas; it is much easier to manage forest with clear-cutting;

Motivation (results of W3) Local: high emphasis by local stakeholders – one way to keep rural viability and local food is to start actively using the agricultural land

Local: high emphasis by local communities and tourism (recreation) companies

Valuation issues (WP4) Costs of maintenance actions (also renting price); impacts for rural viability

Possibilities of other forest management methods (instead of clear-cut); the effects on life quality of local people and on local tourism organisations

Scientific methods for valuation of public goods (available/suitable) (WP4)

Stated preference methods to evaluate land stewardship and rural viability;

Valuation of ecosystem services

Mechanism design issues (WP5) Compensatory subsidies; cooperation solutions

Compensatory subsidies; better communication and cooperation with local inhabitants and companies

Scientific methods for evaluation of appropriate governance strategies (available/suitable) (WP5)

Theoretical/conceptual issues (WP6)

Abandonment and issues related to this Interplay of recreation/tourism and forestry

Decision making/information needs (WP6)

Examples of innovative governance; bioeconomy business models, monetary values to motivate actions

Examples of innovative governance; bioeconomy business models, monetary values to motivate actions

6 Annex 2 – List of maps available

PUBLIC GOODS PROVIDED BY AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY: MAPS FOR HARJU COUNTY, ESTONIA Public good Indicator / proxy

description Map description (original doc name)

Scale Coverage Date Source Notes (Avail-ability)

WATER QUALITY

Station of flowing surface water bodies

Lääne-Eesti vooluveekogumite koondseisund 2013. aastal

Water body West-Estonian river basin district

2013 Environment Agency http://www.Environmental Agency.ee/failid/Laane_vooluveekogumid_KOOND_seisund_2013.pdf

Pdf

Status of standing surface water bodies

Seisuveekogumite koondseisund 2013. aastal

Water body Estonia 2013 Environment Agency http://www.Environmental Agency.ee/failid/Jarvekogumid_KOOND_seisund_2013.pdf

Pdf

Status of coastal water bodies

Rannikumerekogumite koondseisund arvestades elavhõbedasisaldust 2013. aastal

Water body Estonia 2013 Environment Agency http://www.Environmental Agency.ee/failid/Rannikumeri_KOOND_HGga_seisund_2013.pdf

Pdf

Chemical and quantitative status of groundwater body: Cambrian-Vendian

Kambriumi-Vendi põhjaveekogumi üldseisund


2013 Lääne-Eesti vesikonna veemajanduskava http://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/laane-eesti_vesikonna_veemajanduskava.pdf, p. 269

Pdf

Chemical and quantitative status of groundwater body: Ordovician-Cambrian

Ordoviitsiumi-Kambriumi põhjaveekogumi üldseisund Lääne-Eesti vesikonnas


2013 Ibid., p.270 Pdf

Chemical and quantitative status of groundwater body: Silurian-Ordovician

Siluri-Ordoviitsiumi Harju põhjaveekogumi üldseisund


2013 Ibid., p. 273 Pdf

CLIMATE STABILITY AND CLIMATE

CHANGE ADAPTATION

Hydrotechnical land amelioration systems

Maaparandussüsteemide kaardirakendus

Detailed Estonia Running year

Map server of Estonian Land Board http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id=MA10A&user_id=at&bbox=548572.792152494,6573532.08811788,552351.49404051,6575522.93312087&setlegend=HMAMPSA02_10=1,HMAKAT10A=0&LANG=1

WMS

Hydrotechnical land amelioration systems’ areas

PRIA veebikaart Detailed Estonia Running year

Agricultural Registers and Information Board’s web map https://kls.pria.ee/kaart/

WMS

SOIL CONSERVATION AND FUNCTIONALITY

Soil mapping unit, soil texture, thickness of A horizon

Mullakaart Detailed Estonia 2001 Map server of Estonian Land Board http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id=UU38&user_id=at&bbox=570108.399496169,6560258.11085798,576204.995979711,6563470.1606582&setlegend=FUU7550=1&LANG=1

WMS

HIGH NATURE VALUE AREAS

Seminatural communities, NATURA 2000 sites on agricultural land

PRIA veebikaart Detailed Estonia Running year

Agricultural Registers and Information Board’s web map https://kls.pria.ee/kaart/

http://www.keskkonnaagentuur.ee/failid/Laane_vooluveekogumid_KOOND_seisund_2013.pdf



http://www.keskkonnaagentuur.ee/failid/Jarvekogumid_KOOND_seisund_2013.pdf



http://www.keskkonnaagentuur.ee/failid/Rannikumeri_KOOND_HGga_seisund_2013.pdf



http://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/laane-eesti_vesikonna_veemajanduskava.pdf

http://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/laane-eesti_vesikonna_veemajanduskava.pdf

http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id=MA10A&user_id=at&bbox=548572.792152494,6573532.08811788,552351.49404051,6575522.93312087&setlegend=HMAMPSA02_10=1,HMAKAT10A=0&LANG=1





https://kls.pria.ee/kaart/

http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id=UU38&user_id=at&bbox=570108.399496169,6560258.11085798,576204.995979711,6563470.1606582&setlegend=FUU7550=1&LANG=1






NATURA 2000 sites on forest land

Erametsakeskuse veebiteenus Detailed Estonia Running year

Map server of Estonian Land Board http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id=EMK&user_id=at&bbox=558602.778616691,6588890.36401895,570605.060067927,6595213.88007281&LANG=1

WMS

Valuable forest habitats, zones of restrictions and protection

Metsaregistri kaart Detailed Eesti Running year

Environment Agency, public service of forest register http://register.metsad.ee/avalik/

WMS

FARMLAND

BIODIVERSITY

RECREATIONAL ASPECTS LINKED TO

TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTS, FORESTRY

Valuable traditional landscapes

Harju maakonna väärtuslikud maastikud

Landscape Harju County 2003 Maakonna teemaplaneering http://harju.maavalitsus.ee/documents/182179/4211124/Teemaplaneeringu+Asustust+ja+maakasutust+suunavad+keskkonnatingimused_v22rtuslikud+maastikud_rohevorgustik.pdf/fe030f47-85db-447c-b396-6b1aa9d6b2a0 ; väärtuslike maastike kaardikihid Mapinfo http://harju.maavalitsus.ee/asustust-ja-maakasutust-suunavad-keskkonnatingimused-roheline-vorgustik-1

Pdf, Mapinfo

Location of abandoned agricultural land

Kasutusest väljas oleva põllumajandusmaa kaart

400x400 m Estonia 2013 V. Vohu. Kasutusest väljas oleva põllumajandusmaa ressurss, struktuur ja paiknemine http://www.energiatalgud.ee/index.php?title=Pilt:Vohu,_V._Kasutusest_v%C3%A4ljas_olev_p%C3%B5llumajandusmaa_Eestis.pdf

Pdf

Recreation sites and services in state forest

Riigimetsakeskuse puhkevõimaluste otsing

Recreation sites, routes

Estonia ? State Forest Management Centre‘s map service for hikers http://loodusegakoos.ee/kuhuminna/voimaluste-otsing

DRIVERS / FACTORS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO PUBLIC GOOD PROVISION FROM AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

Driver / factor Map description Scale Coverage Date Source Notes

http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id=EMK&user_id=at&bbox=558602.778616691,6588890.36401895,570605.060067927,6595213.88007281&LANG=1




http://register.metsad.ee/avalik/

http://harju.maavalitsus.ee/documents/182179/4211124/Teemaplaneeringu+Asustust+ja+maakasutust+suunavad+keskkonnatingimused_v22rtuslikud+maastikud_rohevorgustik.pdf/fe030f47-85db-447c-b396-6b1aa9d6b2a0





http://harju.maavalitsus.ee/asustust-ja-maakasutust-suunavad-keskkonnatingimused-roheline-vorgustik-1



http://www.energiatalgud.ee/index.php?title=Pilt:Vohu,_V._Kasutusest_v%C3%A4ljas_olev_p%C3%B5llumajandusmaa_Eestis.pdf



http://loodusegakoos.ee/kuhuminna/voimaluste-otsing

http://loodusegakoos.ee/kuhuminna/voimaluste-otsing


description (original doc name) (Availability)

RECREATIONAL

ASPECTS LINKED TO

PROTECTED AREAS

Protected areas, objects,

zones; NATURA 2000 sites

Looduskaitse ja Natura 2000

kaardirakendus

Detailed Estonia Running

year

Map server of Estonian Land Board

http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id

=UU62A&user_id=at&bbox=512174.20044

2413,6554033.67346617,585877.1104057

33,6589590.75916128&setlegend=UU62A_

voond=1,UU62A_natura=1&LANG=1

WMS

Forest parcels, forest use

restrictions

Metsaregistri kaart Detailed Estonia Running

year

Environment Agency, public service of

forest register


WMS

BIODIVERSITY-

NATURAL AND SEMI-

NATURAL AREAS

Green (ecological) network Harju maakonna roheline

võrgustik

Core areas,

corridors

Harju County 2003 Maakonna teemaplaneering

http://harju.maavalitsus.ee/documents/18

2179/4211124/Teemaplaneeringu+Asustus

t+ja+maakasutust+suunavad+keskkonnatin

gimused+kaart_rohevorgustik.pdf/4baf6e8

1-e089-4315-a330-c425f3b47df7 ;

Mapinfo kihid http://harju.maavalitsus.ee/asustust-ja-

maakasutust-suunavad-

keskkonnatingimused-roheline-vorgustik-1

Pdf, Mapinfo

LAND PHYSICAL

ACCESS

(INFRASTRUCTURES)

Roads Maanteeameti kaardirakendus Detailed Estonia Running

year

Map server of Estonian Land Board http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id

=UU75&user_id=at&bbox=532618.335506

12,6573015.34921045,544568.182384744,

6579311.23961138&LANG=1

WMS

INFORMATION

ACCESS (WEB AND

TECHNOLOGY)

FARMERS

CHARACTERISTICS

http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id=UU62A&user_id=at&bbox=512174.200442413,6554033.67346617,585877.110405733,6589590.75916128&setlegend=UU62A_voond=1,UU62A_natura=1&LANG=1






http://harju.maavalitsus.ee/documents/182179/4211124/Teemaplaneeringu+Asustust+ja+maakasutust+suunavad+keskkonnatingimused+kaart_rohevorgustik.pdf/4baf6e81-e089-4315-a330-c425f3b47df7








http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id=UU75&user_id=at&bbox=532618.33550612,6573015.34921045,544568.182384744,6579311.23961138&LANG=1





FARM

MANAGEMENT AND

FARM STRUCTURAL

CHARACTERISTICS

CAP PAYMENTS

AREAS ELIGIBLE FOR

SPECIFIC SUPPORT

SCHEMES

LAND USE AND

LANDSCAPE

CLASSIFICATIONS

Agricultural land parcels,

plots for which CAP support

has been applied, cattle

sheds, apiaries, nitrate-

sensitive areas

PRIA veebikaart Detailed Estonia Running

year

Agricultural Registers and Information

Board’s web map https://kls.pria.ee/kaart/

WMS

Possible wood regeneration

cut parcels, NATURA 2000

grants for forest land, timber

purchasing places

Metsaregistri kaart Detailed Estonia Running

year Metsaregistri avalik veebiteenus


WMS

CORINE land cover CORINE kaardirakendus Detailed Estonia 2012 CORINE kaardirakendus

http://ks.keskkonnainfo.ee/website/Corine

service/

WMS

LAND PHYSICAL AND

GEOGRAPHICAL

CHARACTERISTICS

Altitude data Maainfo kaardirakendus Detailed Estonia Running

year

Map server of Estonian Land Board

http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id

=UU82&user_id=at&bbox=547317.729027

074,6577988.46467336,548762.27097292

6,6578749.53532665&setlegend=UUKAT1_

l_82=0,UUKAT1L_82=0&LANG=1

WMS

LAND SOCIAL

CHARACTERISTICS

Density of population Eesti rahvastiku paiknemine Municipality Estonia 2011 https://www.stat.ee/67848 Png

Dependency ratio Ülalpeetavate määr Municipality Estonia 2010- Konsultatsiooni- ja koolituskeskus Pdf



http://ks.keskkonnainfo.ee/website/Corineservice/

http://ks.keskkonnainfo.ee/website/Corineservice/

http://xgis.maaamet.ee/xGIS/XGis?app_id=UU82&user_id=at&bbox=547317.729027074,6577988.46467336,548762.270972926,6578749.53532665&setlegend=UUKAT1_l_82=0,UUKAT1L_82=0&LANG=1





https://www.stat.ee/67848


..

2013 Geomedia. Kohaliku omavalitsuse üksuste

võimekuse indeks, 2013.

http://www.fin.ee/public/KOV/Uuringud_j

a_analuusid/2014_kov_voimekuse_indeks

_loppversioon.pdf , p 40

Reproductive potential of

population (share of young

women)

Rahvastiku

taastootmispotentsiaal

Municipality Estonia 2010-

2013

Ibid., p 41 Pdf

LAND ECONOMIC

CHARACTERISTICS

Active economic units per

100 working age inhabitants

Majandusüksuste arv 15-64-

aastaste elanike kohta


2013

Ibid., p 42 Pdf

Taxed income and pensions

per inhabitant

Elanike palga- ja pensionitulud

elaniku kohta


2013

Ibid., p 45 Pdf

Registered unemployment

among working age

population

Registreeritud töötute osakaal

15-64-aastastest elanikest


2013

Ibid., p 46 Pdf

http://www.fin.ee/public/KOV/Uuringud_ja_analuusid/2014_kov_voimekuse_indeks_loppversioon.pdf



provide introduction and case study identification ... the zoil and gas capital of europe. ... (such...

Documents