DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECOSYSTEM EXTENT ACCOUNT AND VALUATION OF GRASSLAND

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN ESTONIA

February 13, 2020

OECD/UNECE Seminar on Implementation of SEEA

SESSION 4

SEEA EXPERIMENTAL ECOSYSTEM ACCOUNTING

Kaia Oras (Statistics Estonia)

PLAN OF THE PRESENTATION

1. Compilation of the ecosystem extent account from zero

Creation of Estonian ecosystem unit base map

Development of the extent account and additional data layers by

economic and institutional units

From mapping units to ecosystem typology: crosswalks

2. Valuation of grassland ecosystem services

Selection of the services and monetary valuation methods

Supply of the ecosystem services

Visualization of results

Contingent valuation method (willingness to pay)

3. Assembling the values of ecosystem services in the framework of SNA

Supply and use tables of ecosystem services

SNA and non-SNA services

4. Conclusions

COOPERATION

STAKEHOLDERS:

Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Rural Affairs, Ministry of Finance

EXPERTIZE AND METHODOLOGY:

Statistics Netherlands, DEFRA, UNSD, Eurostat, UN London Group on

Environmental Accounting

Tallinn University of Technology, JRC

PARTNERS IN ESTONIA:

Estonian Environmental Agency

Estonian Environmental Board

MAES/ELME Project: Tartu University, Estonian University of Life Sciences

Compilation of the

ecosystem extent

account

DEVELOPED ESTONIAN ECOSYSTEM MAP*

06.02.2020*- aggregation by UNFCCC/IPCC land use classes (LULUCF)

BEGINNING WAS COMPLICATED: OVERVIEW OF THE DATA SOURCES:

Data sources and accompanying attributes of the data used

Monitoring of the ecological tax reform in Estonia; Kaia Oras

06.02.2020

DATA SOURCE ECOSYSTEM TYPE CLASSIFICATION NUMBER OF CLASSES

DATA TYPE

ESTONIAN AGRICULTURAL REGISTERS AND INFORMATION BOARD Cropland/ Grassland/ Other Original/local 8 Vector

FOREST REGISTRY OF ESTONIA Forest land Original/local 32 Vector

ESTONIAN NATURE FOUNDATION Wetland/ Forest land/ Grassland/ Other

Natura 2000 habitats 57 Vector

SEMI-NATURAL HABITATS Grassland/ Wetland/ Other Natura 2000 habitats 15 Vector

NATURA 2000 HABITATS (ANNEX I HABITATS) Forest land/ Grassland/ Wetland/ Other

Natura 2000 habitats 60 Vector

ESTONIAN SEMI-NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Grassland Natura 2000 habitats 12 Vector

ESTONIAN TOPOGRAPHIC DATABASE Cropland/ Forest land/Grassland/Wetland/Settlements/Other

Original/local 34 Vector

Monitoring of the ecological tax reform in Estonia; Kaia Oras

06.02.2020

MERGING DIFFERENT DATA LAYERS INTO ONE LAYER

Decision tree and priorities

to overlay the map layers:

1. Agricultural land and semi-natural habitats(Support bases)2. Forests

3. Wetlands4. Semi-natural habitats (eligible for support)

5. Natura 2000 habitats inventory6. Meadows database

7. Estonian Topographic Database

After merging and simplification of different data layers and overlying with Estonian topographic database, we were able to get more detailed information for

85% of EAA. For the remaining 15% of the area, Estonian Topographic Database was the only source of information we could use.

FIRST TIME IN ESTONIA: ECOSYSTEM UNIT BASE MAP WAS ASSEMBLED

Cropland: 6 681 km2

Forest land: 24 220 km2

Grassland: 6 885 km2

Settlements: 2 343 km2

Shrubbery: 182 km2

Wetland: 2 951 km2

Other land: 203 km2

Area covered 43 465 km2

Altogether ~3.8 million polygons

140 different mapping units

Ecosystem base map and Land Cadaster data

provided a basis for the creation of the ownership

dimension in a merged dataset.

Monitoring of the ecological tax reform in Estonia; Kaia Oras

06.02.2020

ESTABLISHING OF THE OWNERSHIP DIMENSION OF ESTONIAN

ECOSYSTEM EXTENT ACCOUNT

+

=

Ecosystem base map

Land Cadaster

Monitoring of the ecological tax reform in Estonia; Kaia Oras

06.02.2020

EXAMPLE OF THE DELIVERABLE: OPENING EXTENT ACCOUNT AND THE

LAND OWNERS, 2019 (HA)

*-Shrubbery class is separated from grassland in this table / project, although classified as Grassland in the LULUCF classification

Institutional

sector/(UNFCCC/IPCC land

use classes (LULUCF)

Cropland Forest

land

Grassland Other

land

Settlements Shrubbery* Wetland TOTAL

General government 71 033 113 178 63 176 1 705 62 581 3 083 46 600 361 356

Non-financial corporations 262 487 476 303 91 933 1 104 42 595 3 126 11 181 888 730

Financial corporations 266 624 263 7 173 13 31 1 377

Households 494 158 680 055 291 147 2 456 101 418 9 646 24 497 1 603 376

NPISH 1 344 2 780 1 576 26 1 664 68 277 7 735

Rest of the world 5 920 15 654 7 780 209 3 340 309 742 33 954

State Forest Management

Centre

2 864 1 049 105 39 262 2 468 18 002 1 761 221 258 1 334 720

Unknown 4 502 81 392 3 369 121 4 683 162 21 003 115 232

TOTAL 842 574 2 419 091 498 506 8 096 234 456 18 168 325 589 4 346 480

Percentage 19 56 11 0 5 0 7 100

In order to aggregate Estonian vegetation site types to internationally

comparable format, they were cross walked with EUNIS habitat classification.

Most of the classes can be cross walked to the third level of classification.

Testing IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology for Estonia is planned in the future.

Monitoring of the ecological tax reform in Estonia; Kaia Oras

06.02.2020

CONVERSION TO INTERNATIONAL ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION: EUNIS

Monitoring of the ecological tax reform in Estonia; Kaia Oras

06.02.2020

EXAMPLE OF THE DELIVERABLE: OPENING EXTENT ACCOUNT (2019, EUNIS HABITAT

TYPE CLASSES AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTORS, HA)

Institutional sector Coa

sta

l

Con

str

ucte

d,

ind

ustr

ial a

nd

oth

er

art

ific

ial h

ab

ita

ts

Gra

ssla

nd

s a

nd

la

nd

s

do

min

ate

d b

y f

orb

s,

mo

sse

s o

r lic

he

ns

Hab

ita

t co

mp

lexe

s

Hea

thla

nd

, scru

b a

nd

tun

dra

Inla

nd

su

rfa

ce

wa

ters

Inla

nd

ve

ge

tate

d o

r

sp

ars

ely

ve

ge

tate

d

ha

bita

ts

Ma

rin

e

Mir

es,

bo

gs a

nd

fe

ns

NA

Reg

ula

rly o

r re

ce

ntly

cu

ltiv

ate

d a

gri

cu

ltu

ral,

ho

rtic

ultu

ral a

nd

do

me

stic h

ab

ita

ts

Woo

dla

nd, fo

rest a

nd

oth

er

wo

od

ed

la

nd

TO

TA

L

General government

632 55 190 29 224 5 739 3 333 11 354 19 420 2 439 17 413 202 103 232 113 178 361 356

Non-financial

corporations

197 25 475 37 323 2 734 3 029 2 780 16 337 1 927 7 402 160 315 063 476 303 888 730

Financial

corporations

3 110 140 14 20 13 54 21 15 0 363 624 1 377

Households 644 80 072 110 059 9 343 10 282 6 712 19 874 9 164 15 606 357 661 207 680 055 1 603 376

NPISH 3 1 179 859 226 76 57 358 121 132 1 1 942 2 780 7 735

Rest of the world 100 2 498 3 805 457 539 185 591 1 197 536 15 8 377 15 654 33 954

State Forest

Management

Centre

1 353 8 794 29 091 1 926 1 902 18 753 10 551 5 507 201 043 303 6 393 1 049 105 1 334 720

Unknown 65 3 259 2 056 178 189 1 242 1 709 132 19 281 23 5 706 81 392 115 232

TOTAL 2 997 176 577 212 556 20 618 19 370 41 095 68 894 20 507 261 428 1 062 1 102 284 2 419 091 4 346 480

EXAMPLE OF THE DELIVARABLE: FRAGMENT OF THE OPENING EXTENT ACCOUNT

(2019, EUNIS HABITAT TYPE CLASSES, INSTITUTIONAL SECTORS AND ECONOMIC

ACTIVITIES, HA)

SECTOR_ACTIVITY NACE NACE ACTIVITY

Tota

l

Co

asta

l

Co

nst

ruct

ed

, in

du

stri

al a

nd

oth

er

arti

fici

al h

abit

ats

Gra

ssla

nd

s an

d la

nd

s d

om

inat

ed

by

forb

s, m

oss

es

or

lich

en

s

Hab

itat

co

mp

lexe

s

He

ath

lan

d, s

cru

b a

nd

tu

nd

ra

Inla

nd

surf

ace

wat

ers

…

General government_TOTAL 361 356 632 55 190 29 224 5 739 3 333 11 354

General government_H H Transporting and storage 32 0 31 0 0 0 0

General government_J J Information and communication 6 0 2 0 0 0 0

General government_L L Real estate activities 610 2 246 82 96 2 6

General government_M M Professional, scientific and technical

activities3 0 2 0 2 0 0

General government_N N Administrative and support service

activities1 0 0 0 0 0 0

General government_O O Public administration and defence;

compulsory social security249 874 84 37 658 18 207 1 046 1 806 1 823

General government_OTHER 98 781 545 16 789 10 556 4 286 1 516 9 464

...

More detailed

levels

available

Valuation of grassland

ecosystem services

SELECTION OF THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR MONETARY

ASSESSMENT

CRITERIA:

• importance

• data sources and assessment methods

• consultations with Statistis Netherlands experts and Rocky Harris on feasibility

• interest of potential users, stakeholders (query and discussions)

Calculations and integration was first tested and the final selection was made in later stages

Services selected for valuation:

• PROVISIONING: fodder, medical herbs, raw material for bioenergy, wild game;

• REGULATING: pollination, climate regulation: carbon sequestration and carbon storage;

• CULTURAL: recreation and recreational hunting, nature education ecosystem service.

.

06.02.2020

ABC*

Stakeholders yes/no Decision FEASIBLE NOT FEASIBLE/not chosen

SERVICE R E F M S

Pro

visi

on

ing

Fodder provisioning A 1 1 1 Y Resource rent Rent price

Market price: agriculture statistics, Market price: MFAHybrid approach

CVM

Benefit transfer (using values from other studies)

Expenditure based method

Raw material for bioenergy A 1 1 1 1 Y Direct market priceWild game B 2 Y Direct market price

Medical herbs B 2 Y Direct market priceCVM

Benefit transfer

Reg

ula

tive

Pollination B 1 1 Y Avoided cost method;Benefit transfer

CVMClimate regulation B 1 1 Y PES scheme (CO2 price in EU ETS)

CVMHabitats for species A 2 1 1 no CVM Expenditure based methods

Protection from flooding A 2 1 1 no CVM

Soil fertility B 1 no CVM

Natural pest control - 1 1 no - -

Cu

ltu

ral

Tourism, leisure, recreation A 2 1 1 1 1 Y Expenditure based method Time use based approach

CVM

Resource rent methodTravel cost method

Hunting Y Consumer expenditure, benefit transfer

Nature education B 1 1 1 Y Expenditure based methodsTravel cost approach

CVMAesthetic appreciation, inspiration, spiritual experience, sense of place

C 2 2 1 no CVM Expenditure based, market price, hedonic pricing, benefit transfer

PROCESS: SELECTION OF THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR MONETARY ASSESSMENT

EXAMPLE: MONETARY VALUATION OF FODDER

Tested methods:

• Rent price method - average rent price (eur) * extent (ha).

• Resource rent method – residual after all costs and normal returns have been deducted

from the total output.

• Market price methods – consumed and collected fodder quantity * price; data from

agricultural statistics; data from Material Flow Accounts.

• Hybrid method – combination of market price and resource rent methods.

Valuation method Output of fodderproduction, million €

Value of the ecosystem contribution, million €

Rent price 26.0Resource rent 4.7Market price - agriculture 69.8 9.1

Market price - MFA 39.3 5.1Hybrid 69.8 5.3

EXAMPLE: RESOURCE RENT BY HYBRID METHOD,

MONETARY VALUATION OF FODDER

Hybrid method:

• The output of fodder production (70 million €) is

based on prices and quantities from agricultural

statistics

• National accounts expenditures structure was

used to find resource rent

• Although fodder consumed in situ is not included

in national accounts, an assumption was made

that the calculated variables would have the same

structure as the data that is included in national

accounts have

Output of fodder production 69,8

minus

Intermediate consumption 48,8

Compensation of employees 13,4

Other taxes on production 0,3

Consumption of fixed capital 11,3

Return to produced assets 2,3

Labour of self-employed persons 5,9

plus

Other subsidies on production 17,5

=

Resource rent 5,3

EXAMPLE: MONETARY VALUATION OF FODDER

Values of rent price method are allocated to the grasslands yield factors and soil

fertility

• Green represent grasslands

(short-term grasslands

excluded) according to the

value they supply

• Dark grey areas are other

ecosystem types that were

left aside in the current work.

EXAMPLE OF THE DELIVERABLE:

SUPPLY OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR GRASSLANDS,

TOTAL VALUE OF SELECTED SERVICES, THOUSAND €, 2018

Monitoring of the ecological tax reform in Estonia; Kaia Oras

06.02.2020

Ecosystem type/service

Fodder

(rent

price)

Hay

for

bio

energ

y

(mark

et

price)

Medic

alherb

s

(mark

et

price)

Gam

e(m

ark

et

price)

Polli

nation

(benefit

transfe

r)

Natu

re e

ducation

(cost

based

appro

ach,

dis

trib

ute

d b

y

vis

itation r

ate

)

Hunting

(cost

based

appro

ach)

Recre

ation

(tim

e

use)

To

tal

valu

e

1. Grassland 25 989 51 191 1 151 6 906 753 2 222 5 305 42 567

1.1. Semi-natural grassland 5 198 51 125 557 3 048 632 1 068 3 070 13 748

1.1.1. Semi-natural grassland according to the NATURA classification 2 085 51 55 263 865 283 470 1 374 5 446

1.1.1.1. Boreal baltic coastal meadows 242 0 17 69 0 27 111 163 628

1.1.1.2. Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceousvegetation (“grey dunes”) 3 0 0 1 2 2 1 20 30

1.1.1.3. Dry sand heaths with Calluna and Empetrum nigrum 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1.1.1.4. Inland dunes with open Corynephorus and Agrostis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1.1.1.5. European dry heaths 5 0 0 1 5 2 2 22 36

1.1.1.6. Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands 63 0 0 14 35 10 24 23 168

1.1.1.7. Xeric sand calcareous grasslands 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1.1.1.8. Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetaliacalaminariae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.1.1.9.Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid

sites)102 0 9 15 146 14 28 69 383

1.1.1.10. Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands 134 0 3 14 93 30 24 101 399

1.1.1.11. Nordic alvar and precambrian calcareous flatrocks 229 0 11 56 308 48 98 77 827

1.1.1.12. Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) 68 0 0 11 28 3 15 22 148

1.1.1.13. Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels 82 0 0 7 11 17 15 69 202

1.1.1.14. Northern boreal alluvial meadows 635 51 3 43 39 75 90 625 1 560

1.1.1.15. Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) 116 0 3 11 24 31 20 124 330

1.1.1.16. Fennoscandian wooded meadows 102 0 6 11 83 9 23 45 279

1.1.1.17. Fennoscandian wooded pastures 61 0 2 10 89 14 17 15 209

1.1.2. Other semi-natural grassland 3 355 0 70 294 2 184 348 598 1 695 8 545

1.2. Cultivated grassland 20 791 0 66 594 3 858 121 1 153 2 235 28 819

1.2.1. Permanent grassland 20 791 0 66 594 3 858 121 1 153 2 235 28 819

1.2.1.1. Environmental non-sensitive permanent grassland 20 744 0 66 593 3 849 120 1 151 2 228 28 752

1.2.1.2. Environmental sensitive permanent grassland 47 0 0 1 8 1 3 7 68

06.02.2020

EXAMPLE OF THE DELIVERABLE: AGGREGATE AVERAGE HA-VALUES OF

SERVICES BY TYPES OF GRASSLANDS

Cultivated

grasslands

Fixed coastal

dunes with

herbaceous

vegetation (“grey

dunes”) (2130)

Northern boreal

alluvial meadows

(6450)

HOW THE SELECTION OF VALUATION METHODS INFLUENCES THE RESULTS?

EXAMPLE OF FODDER, SUMMED AVERAGE HA-VALUES OF SERVICES

Bringing together various dimensions

Photo: Kasari, Matsalu National Park, Lääne County, Estonia. Olev Mihkelmaa, olev.ee – own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11615286

EXAMPLE OF THE DELIVERABLE: LINKING THE INFORMATION ON

SERVICES VALUE AND OWNERSHIP:

ALLUVIAL MEADOWS

OWNERS

Fodder; 24,6

Hay for bioenergy; 2,0

Nature education; 2,9

Recreation; 24,2

Average service value, euro/ha, 60,0

06.02.2020

EXAMPLE OF THE DELIVERABLE: LINKING THE INFORMATION ON

SERVICES VALUE AND OWNERSHIP: CULTIVATED GRASSLANDS

OWNERS

Fodder; 81,2

Pollination ; 15,1

Hunting ; 4,5Recreation; 8,7

Average service value, euro/ha113

Photo: Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) in Pävilosta. Author: (C) Brigita Laime. http://eeb.lu.lv/scripts/atteli/albums.cgi?d=ainavas&f=6&l=en&k=piekraste/Pavilosta/#augsmala

EXAMPLE OF THE DELIVERABLE: LINKING THE INFORMATION ON HIGH

SERVICE VALUE AREAS (euro/ha) AND OWNERSHIP

COASTAL DUNES

OWNER

Fodder; 6,8

Pollination ; …Nature education; …

Recreation; 50,5

Average service values euro/ha, 76,2

WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP) FOR SEMI-NATURAL AND CULTIVATED

GRASSLANDS, COMPARISON

WTP method gives lower ecosystem

services value for cultivated grasslands

than for the semi-natural grasslands

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

40 000

45 000

Selectedpreferredmethods

Willingness topay (WTP)

Semi-naturalgrasslands

Cultivatedgrasslands

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Provision of tourism and leisure services

Enabling environmental education

Flood protection

Supply of agricultural production

Enabling pollination and honey harvesting

Provision of genetic and medical resources

Maintaining soil fertility

Ensuring landscape diversity

Photosynthesis (production of oxygen)

Climate control

Habitat conservation for biological species

WTP results by services

Semi-natural grassland Cultivated grassland

Supply and use tables for

grassland ecosystem

services

Monitoring of the ecological tax reform in06.02.2020

SUPPLY TABLE Type of the economic unit Ecosystem typeCorporations

Gen

eral

go

vern

men

t

Ho

use

ho

lds

NP

ISH

Res

t o

f th

ew

orl

d

1.1

Nat

ura

l an

d s

emi-

nat

ura

l gra

ssla

nd

1.1

.1 S

emi-

nat

ura

l gr

assl

and

acc

ord

ing

to

the

NA

TUR

A

clas

sifi

cati

on

1.1

.2 O

ther

nat

ura

lgr

assl

and

1.2

Cu

ltiv

ated

gra

ssla

nd

1.2

.1.1

En

viro

nm

enta

l n

on

-sen

siti

ve

per

man

ent

gras

slan

d

1.2

.1.2

En

viro

nm

enta

l se

nsi

tive

per

man

ent

gras

slan

dIn

term

edia

te s

up

ply

fr

om

gra

ssla

nd

tocr

op

lan

d

Gra

ssla

nd

tota

l

Esto

nia

to

tal

Ecosystem services Agr

icu

ltu

re

Hu

nti

ng

Elec

tric

ity,

ga

s, s

team

H

um

anh

ealt

hac

tivi

ties

PROVISIONING

not relevant

Fodder production, rent price 5,20 2,09 3,11 20,79 20,75 0,04 25,99Hay for bioenergy 0,51 0,51 0,51

Medical herbs 0,13 0,05 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,00 0,19Game 0,56 0,26 0,29 0,59 0,59 0,00 1,15 8,48

REGULATING AND MAINTENANCEC sequestration (EUA price) 0,00 0,00 0,16 0,00

Pollination 3,05 0,86 2,18 3,86 3,85 0,01 6,91 19,25CULTURAL

Nature education, cost based 0,63 0,28 0,35 0,12 0,12 0,00 0,75 8,75Hunting, expenditure based 1,07 0,47 0,60 1,15 1,15 0,00 2,22 16,19

Recreation 3,07 1,37 1,70 2,24 2,23 0,01 5,30 51,00

USE TABLE Type of the economic unit (same as above) Ecosystem type (same as above) TOTAL USEPROVISIONING

not relevant

Fodder production, rent price 25,99 25,99Hay for bioenergy 0,51 0,51

Medical herbs 0,19 0,19Game 1,15 1,15 8,48

REGULATING AND MAINTENANCEC sequestration (EUA price) 0,0 0,00

Pollination6,91 6,91 19,25

CULTURALNature education, real data 0,75 0,75 8,75

Hunting, expenditure based 2,22 2,22 16,19

Recreation 5,30 5,30 51,00

SUPPLY BY

ECOSYSTEMS

=USE BY

ECONOMIC

ACTIVITIES

ARE THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES INCLUDED IN NATIONAL ACCOUNTS?

SNA AND NON-SNA ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Monitoring of the ecological tax reform in Estonia; Kaia Oras

06.02.2020

• PROVISIONING SERVICES ARE PART OF THE SNA

• REGULATORY SERVICES ARE NOT SNA BENEFITS

• CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES ARE A MIX OF SNA AND NON-SNA BENEFITS

Ecosystem services Included/not included in SNA

Provisioning

Fodder production Yes , market good

Hay for bioenergy Yes, market good

Medical herbs Yes, market good

Game Yes, partly as not all is traded on

market

Regulating and maintenance

Climate regulation, stock provision No, TBD (quota were used but

service itself is not traded on a

market)

Pollination No

Cultural

Nature education Yes, transaction based

Hunting, expenditure based Yes, transaction based

Recreation, time use No, as time is not traded

1. The explicit map of ecosystems created

2. Uniform ecosystems classification applied

3. We have now ecosystem extent account that provides an insight regarding the owners of the land where

specific ecosystems are located

4. Valuation of eight ecosystem services of grasslands ecosystems was carried out and parallel methods

were tested

5. On the basis of valued ecosystem services the experimental supply and use tables were created

6. One ecosystem service, namely nature education ecosystem service, was analysed in depth

MAIN ACHIEVMENTS – ONE YEAR

WAY FORWARD

1. The scope of the work will be widened to other ecosystems

2. Further development of the methods for the valuation of cultural services

3. Testing the valuation of the ecosystems assets

4. Development of the ecosystem extent for urban areas

5. Creation of the time series of the extent account and classifying the changes

6. Creation of the visualized outputs of ecosystem account for a web and

publishing

06.02.2020

Thank you!

Kätlin Aun (Statistics Estonia), Argo Ronk (Statistics Estonia), Grete Luukas

(Statistics Estonia), Veiko Adermann (Statistics Estonia), Üllas Ehrlich (Tallinn

University of Technology), Aija Kosk (Tallinn University of Technology)

https://www.stat.ee/