inventory of the shore areas in the estonian green belt. a · pdf file ·...

Inventory of the shore areas in the Estonian Green Belt. A report of the inventory results.

1


2


3

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4

2. Important definitions ................................................................................................... 5

3. Cultural heritage and objects of cultural heritage........................................................ 6

4. Of the necessity of the inventory of cultural heritage .................................................. 7

5. Estonian practice of the inventory of objects of cultural heritage ................................ 9

6. Description of the Inventory of the Shore Areas of the Baltic Green Belt project .......11

7. Surveyed objects ......................................................................................................13

7.1 Division of the objects of cultural heritage by object types ......................................14

7.2 Condition of the objects of cultural heritage and the factors affecting it ..................19

7.3 Location of objects of cultural heritage in different land parcels ..............................23

7.4 Location of objects of cultural heritage in the Green Belt ........................................24

7.5 Protection of objects of cultural heritage .................................................................27

7.6 Objects of cultural heritage previously known .........................................................28

7.7 Objects of cultural heritage subject to heritage conservation ..................................29

7.8 Objects of cultural heritage subject to nature conservation .....................................29

8. Current human pressure in the Estonian Green Belt .................................................30

8.1 Condition of instances of current human pressure..................................................34

9. Location of objects in the protected areas .................................................................36

10. Applicability of the inventory results ..........................................................................37

11. References ...............................................................................................................41

ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................43

Annex 1. Division of objects of cultural heritage by typology ........................................44

Annex 2. Division of objects of cultural heritage by condition .......................................46

Annex 3. Division of objects of cultural heritage by municipalities ................................48

Annex 4. Objects of cultural heritage protected/known before ......................................49

Annex 5. Objects located in protected areas ................................................................59

Annex 6. Current human pressure ...............................................................................60

Annex 7. Surveyed objects by municipalities ................................................................62


4

1. Introduction

Each square metre of land under our feet has a history, part of which is perceptible while

the remainder is veiled in permanent secrecy. Estonian off-shore coastal areas have

stayed intact from regular use for a long time due to the occupation period, when they

were subject to strict use and travelling restrictions and any human impact mainly resulted

from military activity. Because of scarcity of human impact, several natural and cultural

values are relatively well preserved in these areas. Remote from daily business activities,

there were somewhat better conditions for the preservation of pre-occupation heritage in

the Green Belt, at the same time there accrued the multiplicity of military objects, which

also reflect a stage in our history. Although the entire historical heritage cannot be

considered equally valuable, we have no right to delete a part of our history.

The Baltic Green Belt, which is a part of European Green Belt, runs along the Northern

and North-western coast of Estonia up to Rohuküla and from there on, along the Northern

and Western coasts of Vormsi, Hiiumaa and Saaremaa islands up to the far end of Sõrve

Peninsula. The width of the Green Belt has been agreed to be 50 km – 25 km on each

side of the border.

The Baltic Green Belt, following the European Green Belt project, is an INTERREG

project (2009–2012), including several European countries. This report provides an

overview of the inventory of the condition of objects of cultural heritage and coastal

areas, performed by the Estonian University of Life Sciences within the Baltic

Green Belt project in 2009–2010. Besides, the protection of surveyed objects of cultural

heritage and possibilities for their protection and conservation in the future are reviewed.


5

2. Important definitions

’Coastal area’ – an area following the coastline, extending 300m seawards and 3km

landwards from the average shoreline. This is the area with an intensive exchange of

matter and energy between the sea and mainland. This definition of coastal areas is often

used in Estonian planning practice, following the recommendation of HELCOM (Peterson,

Kuldna 2005).

’Shore’ – a terrestrial zone lining a body of water and used pursuant to special regulations. The restrictions are set with the Nature Conservation Act (RT I 2004, 38, 258). The shore is made up of zones with restrictions, the width of which is measured from the border of the body of water marked on the Topographic Map: the limited management zone (200m by the Baltic Sea), the building exclusion zone (200m on the sea islands, 100m on other sea coasts, 50m in the densely populated areas, as of the border of the limited management zone in the coastal woodland), the water protection zone (20m by the Baltic Sea pursuant to Water Protection Act) (Veersalu 2010).

’Shore area’ – this report regards the shore area as the terrestrial zone with the width of

200 metres lining a body of water, where the inventory of the condition of objects of

cultural heritage and shore areas took place within the Baltic Green Belt project. The term

‟selection area‟ is also used in the report as a synonym of the shore area.

’Object of Cultural heritage’ (OCH) – there is no common definition of objects of cultural

heritage in Estonia. The authors of the Coastal Areas Inventory Methodology (CAIM)

(Sepp, Lõhmus 2010) used the easiest possible definition: an object of cultural heritage is

the traces of life and activities of our ancestors in the landscape (Tarang 2007). The

characteristics of objects of cultural heritage are inherently tangible, linked to both

landscape and the past and frequently anthropogenic.

’Object type’ – a classification enabling to systematize the objects of cultural heritage.

Based on the characteristics or the period of origin of the objects, short descriptions and a

model list of 139 types of objects of cultural heritage have been prepared.

’Instance of Current Human Pressure’ (ICHP) – showy modern buildings that seem to

dominate the landscape and/or are located in the building exclusion zone as the external

analysis confirms (the building exclusion zone has been marked on the fieldwork maps

pursuant to Nature Conservation Act, no possible specifications in the form of a decrease

in the building exclusion zone have been surveyed); and landscape disturbances, such as

illegal rubbish depositories or the extracted ground, etc.


6

3. Cultural heritage and objects of cultural heritage

The use of the word ‟heritage‟ in our today‟s meaning is not very old. Understanding it in

the meaning of certain values based on the past has been adopted only in the second half

of the last century. (Graham et al 2000, Parts 2007). At the same time, ‟heritage‟ is very

productive, generating around it or annexing to it several verbal connections – heritage

communities, natural heritage, industrial heritage, heritage music (= folk music or

traditional music), cultural heritage, objects of cultural heritage, and many other

examples1. It is evident that the term ‟heritage‟ goes hand in hand with the words ‟history‟,

‟the past‟ or as it has been said, heritage is a view from the present (Graham et al 2000,

Parts 2007).

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

(UNESCO, 1972) considers the following as cultural heritage:

Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting,

elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and

combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view

of history, art or science;

Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their

architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding

universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; and

Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including

archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic,

ethnological or anthropological aspect.

Objects of cultural heritage as one part of cultural heritage have the following

characteristics:

material character – their material output is the signs preserved until today

(Kusmin 2005). The object of cultural heritage is generally physically existant, even

in the case its value lies only in the lore connected with it. In the case of place

names, the material background is also expressed in the properties, purpose, etc.

of the place that received the name (Valk 2007).

connexion to landscape – by Tarang (2008), objects of cultural heritage is

specifically the traces of life and activities of our ancestors on the landscape. By

Külvik (2007) cultural heritage forms a heritage landscape, being in natural spatial

connections as objects and perceptible, memorable and imaginable phenomena;

rooting in the past – Parts (2007) explains that heritage is a political, evaluating

choice from the past, which is however always more or less a subjective decision;

this fact also explains the varied attitudes to some objects. Considering the time

dimension and valuations of the political system, which left its traces on the

1 It is complicated to provide one firm definition for the term ‟cultural heritage‟. The fact that the English term ‟cultural

heritage‟ is translated into Estonian both as ‟cultural heritage‟ and ‟objects of cultural heritage‟, sometimes also „heritage

culture‟ depending on the context, increases the confusion.


7

landscape, it is understandable, why some objects, such as military objects left by

the Soviet Army or kolkhoz buildings are not valued. Over time, standpoints are

reviewed and reconsidered and one day the objects rather ordinary and young in

today‟s sense may be regarded as deserving protection (Tarang 2008). We cannot

delete a part of our history and culture;

anthropogenetic nature – having the characteristics of culture (Kusmin 2005).

Tarang (2005) has equalized culture with the lifestyle, free existence and activities

of man. In England, it has been said that heritage may be considered as a product

of knowledge and culture and a political resource (Graham et al 2000), which also

indicates the importance of human factor at the origin of heritage.

Walter Leal Filho (2006) suggests that the appropriate definition of objects of cultural

heritage is found in New Zealand‟s Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural

Heritage Value (NZ/ICOMOS, 1992)2:„The areas, landscapes and features, buildings,

structures and gardens, archaeological and traditional sites, and sacred places and

monuments, which:

have lasting values and can be appreciated in their own right;

teach us about the past and the culture of those who came before us;

provide the context for community identity whereby people relate to the land and to

those who have gone before;

provide variety and contrast in the modern world and a measure against which we can

compare the achievements of today; and

provide visible evidence of the continuity between past, present and future.”

Usually only the objects taken under national protection, which have historical,

archaeological, ethnographic, town-planning, architectural, artistic, scientific, religious-

historical or other cultural value, are treated as objects of cultural heritage. Protected

objects of cultural heritage is managed by national institutions, in Estonia the respective

institution is National Heritage Board. The management of protection is based on the laws

and the statutory legislation.

The objects with above-mentioned features definitely have various values or peculiarities

or degrees of rareness, therefore a rather serious choice is made in the case of objects

taken under national protection. Thus, the majority of objects of cultural heritage are not

subject to national heritage protection and will not be subject to it in the future, as well.

However, this does not mean they do not have a value.

4. Of the necessity of the inventory of cultural heritage

Lembitu Tarang (2005) has pointed out the reasons for the importance of the inventory of

objects of cultural heritage:

1. Enabling to analyse and assess the value of objects – this will be the future

reserve for heritage protection and the protection of cultural values; In the course

2 New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value (1992)


8

of the inventory of objects of cultural heritage, objects with international or national

importance and subject to be taking under national protection may be discovered;

2. Enabling to create a common database instead of individual notes scattered in

archives and museum funds and add to it a great part of yet unknown cultural

values;

3. Generating data and source of information, which can be used for making forestry

decisions;

4. Enabling to manage owner protection against the perishing of the object due to

unknowing;

5. Informed protection of cultural values in the forest creates additional value at forest

certification;

6. Enabling to improve the locality‟s reputation, the local citizens‟ self-appraisal and

especially value the specific forest-owner‟s forest by the means of awareness-

raising and familiarization;

7. Enabling to prepare training trails of regional study tourism and natural historical

tourism and routes for the introduction of cultural heritage and natural values;

8. Increasing the general value of forest landscape as a recreational area;

9. Enabling further studies for the comparative analysis of localities‟ life and work

culture;

10. Enabling to study the changes in culture and landscapes and the accompanying

processes in a longer perspective.

Summarizing the text above, it may be concluded that the inventory of objects of cultural

heritage is predominantly important for cultural educational reasons (teaching trails,

databases, further studies), forestry reasons (forestry decision-making, certification), but

also for settling of general land-utilization issues (recreational areas) and maintaining the

identity (the self-appraisal of local inhabitants and the reputation of the locality and

changes in culture and landscape).

In Estonia, one of the important criteria for assessing the cultural-historical value of

landscapes is the wealth and condition of cultural monuments and traditional landscape

elements, and the wealth and character of elements/structures originating from various

historical periods (Hellström 2001). Maandi (2009) thinks that the reason why the pre-

occupation landscape elements (border stones, ancient trees and dry-stone walls) have

preserved despite the nationalization and collectivization of land is the people‟s need to to

keep in touch with the past ages. Trying to study and understand old days and approach

them from the standpoint of today‟s knowledge and values enables them to become a part

of people‟s identity and cultural heritage (Palang et al 2006).

Coastal areas play an important part in the development of cultural specificity all over the

world. Ports located on coasts, where international trading took place and the navy was

acting, were the places where the cultural knowledge and experience accumulated. On

the other hand, the sea-centred way of life, based on seafaring and fishing, has been a

leading factor in the development of local landscapes. The majority of the cultural heritage

of the world has accumulated particularly in the coastal areas (Vallega 2003). Callegari

and Vallega (2002) recognize that up to now, cultural heritage has not been paid particular


9

attention in the coastal areas. Therefore, rational and efficient integration of the subject of

cultural heritage in the planning and maintenance of coastal areas is expected and

necessary. Presently, the development of individual coastal areas depends on the

standalone and disconnected choices of local governments, made through ages.

Problems often arise from conflicts between sustainable development and cultural

heritage and the continuation of traditions (Howard and Pinder 2003).

Figure 1. The sea does not have only great economical importance; it is deeply connected with the traditions and folk culture of coast dwellers. Left: Net sheds in Altja village. (Photo: Kivipõld, K., 2010) and right: A lifeboat station from 1891 in Juminda village (Photo: Juha, A., 2010). Both objects of cultural heritage are located in Lahemaa National Park.

Due to the Soviet occupation, Estonian coastal areas stayed out of regular use for a long time, when strict usage and travelling restrictions were in effect on the shores bordering the high sea. Many permanent residents were forced to leave their homes at that time. That part of the cultural heritage, which did not stay in the way of military constructions was left alone for the nature to determine its fate. On the other hand, we should not ignore the heritage of the Soviet Union – there are numerous examples of the former military facilities and buildings on the shores and islands that have a historical and cultural value. To preserve the valuable cultural heritage, leaving at the same time the people the chance to enjoy the wonderful nature of Estonian coast, these objects and areas must be managed rationally and economically. That cannot be done, having no idea about the values hidden in the coastal area.

5. Estonian practice of the inventory of objects of cultural heritage

The issue of preserving natural cultural heritage has been the focus of Estonian national

parks since Lahemaa National Park was established in 1971, as the first of its kind in the

Soviet Union. Cultural heritage is an important part of the National Park‟s residential

environment, which is extremely delicate; the loss of one element can disturb the

equilibrium of the whole system. At the same time, cultural heritage represents historical

memory and values (Paulus 2010). In the centrally planned economy of the Soviet Union,

creating a national park enabled support for preserving traces of the past by renovating

old village buildings, maintaining village squares, as well as collecting and preserving

information about boat-building and landing places.


10

National parks have maintained the principle that human beings and their creation are a

part of nature. Therefore, objects of cultural heritage is being mapped in all of the national

parks in Estonia, but regrettably, national parks form only a small part of Estonian territory.

Thus, the predominant approach applied to studying cultural heritage in Estonia has been

object-based. Remarkable milk trestles, windmills, dairies, lighthouses, manor farmhouses

have been mapped this way. In collaboration between the National Heritage Board and

Maavalla Koda (Estonian House of Taara and Native Religions), an inventory of Estonian

natural sacred sites is being taken, with the aim to map all the sacred places in a third of

Estonian vald3 by 2012. To introduce these outstanding examples of cultural heritage, a

number of books have been published and some exhibitions have been organised. This

method provides an overview of only a fraction of a certain type of cultural object

dispersed throughout Estonia and consequently provides only a glimpse of the wealth of

Estonia‟s cultural heritage. Each initiative, seeming similar to others according to the aim

of acknowledging and introducing cultural heritage, proves to be different by methodology

and form of outcome.

A broader inventory of objects of cultural heritage and introducing the subject of cultural

heritage has been so far led by the State Forest Management Centre (RMK)4. A great part

of Estonian mainland has been surveyed by now under the leadership of RMK. As of

March 2011, 28,711 objects of cultural heritage from all of the counties of Estonia had

been recorded in the database of the Estonian Nature Information System (EELIS).

Estonian Land Board5 information system consists a cultural heritage map layer where all

objects of cultural heritage and related information can be seen. Besides, seminars and

information days have been organised and a number of publications have been issued to

introduce objects of cultural heritage.

3 Vald – Parish – a historical administrative unit in Estonia, used from the prehistoric times to the first half of

the 20th century. 4Information on the project of inventory of heritage culture can be found in the Internet at: http://www.rmk.ee/teemad/parandkultuur

5 The responsibilities of Estonian Land Board include, among other things, the direction, organization and coordination of geoinformatics-related activities in Estonia. Estonian Land Board administers and mediates various cartographic databases and enables the availability of these map applications on the Internet. The map applications are available at: http://xgis.maaamet.ee/

http://www.rmk.ee/teemad/parandkultuur

http://xgis.maaamet.ee/


11

6. Description of the Inventory of the Shore Areas of the Baltic Green Belt project

Eesti Maaülikooli Põllumajandus- ja Keskkonnainstituut [Institute of Agricultural and

Environmental Sciences of the Estonian University of Life Sciences] conducted the

inventory of shore areas in the Estonian Green Belt in the period August 2009–December

2010. The inventory was based on the Coastal Areas Inventory Methodology (CAIM),

devised in 2009 and complemented in 2010 (Sepp, Lõhmus 2010).

During the fieldwork in 2009 and 2010, the entire Northern and Northwestern coast of

Estonia, the offshore coasts of Hiiumaa and Saaremaa and the entire coast of Vormsi

island was surveyed. The inventory area was 200 metres from the line of the average

water position6. The inventory area was determined based on Estonian Nature

Conservation Act (RT I 2004), pursuant to which the width of limited management zones

of sea coast shall be: 200 metres. Thus, the use of land in the area in question has

restrictions arising from law. Development work must be under strict supervision in the

restriction zone and supposedly, objects of natural and cultural heritage are protected

more effectively there than in the areas with no restrictions.

Towns located in the coastal area were excluded from the inventory area. The only

exception was Paldiski, which has been historically an important military town (especially

during the Soviet Union period) and which still has a large quantity of military heritage.

Figure 2. The inventory area in the shore area of Estonian Green Belt.

The inventory included both the known objects of cultural heritage in the shore areas (it

was important for the ascertainment of their condition and the new potential objects of

cultural heritage found in the course of pre-selection or fieldwork. Objects were not

6 The delimitation was based on the Estonian Topographic Map.


12

evaluated from the perspective of cultural or exhibition value during the inventory,

because data gathered on ground- and fieldwork is not sufficient for objective evaluation

and thus, all the objects must be treated equally as potential objects of cultural heritage

(hereafter shortened as: objects of cultural heritage). The obtained results allow to

evaluate, to which extent and which threat human activity has posed to natural and

heritage-cultural values.

At fieldwork, the inventory area was covered on foot to find the objects in nature that were

found upon pre-selection and to map all the so-called new objects of cultural heritage with

no preceding data. Every found object was described in a fieldwork paper, recording its

(conventional) name, type code, location data, the extent of the object and the land parcel

where the object was located. The object‟s condition and the human impact that had

affected or may potentially affect the object were examined and a wealth of other relevant

information was collected during the fieldwork. A database was put together based on the

collected information and photos of the objects of cultural heritage that were found.

Figure 3. Database of the objects of cultural heritage

The initial register was made based on the fieldwork data by using the MS Excel

programme. The register was provided in two tables, the main table with objects and

information and the additional table, which shows in detail the information concerning the

photographing. The information in the main table was also transferred to the MapInfo

database (Figure 3) where the information was connected with the map object and

photographs. MapInfo is GIS software common in Estonian state agencies; therefore, it is

convenient to share the collected information on the objects of cultural heritage with

various agencies. The results of the inventory of shore areas enable to complement the

respective database of Estonian Nature Information System concerning the objects of

Estonian cultural heritage.


13

7. Surveyed objects

Fieldwork took place from August 2009 to December 2010, surveying the total of 1529

objects, out of which 1268 were the objects of cultural heritage and 261 the instances of

current human pressure (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Division of the objects surveyed in Estonian Green Belt (objects of cultural heritage (OCH) and instances of current human pressure (MH, EH, UUS - new)

Comparing the percentages of the objects of cultural heritage and the instances of current

human pressure based on inventory results shows that the objects of cultural heritage

greatly outnumber the instances of current human pressure. This is already

understandable, considering the period of origin, which is one of the main criteria in

defining the objects. While all the objects originating from the earlier periods were

regarded as the objects of cultural heritage, current human pressure includes the last few

decades. As the majority of objects have no completion, usage, generation or other year

labelled to them, the determination of the era was performed by observation.


14

Figure 5. Location of the surveyed objects of cultural heritage (OHC) and instances of current human pressure (ICHP) by municipalities

The objects in Kuusalu municipality, Harju County were over-represented with the total

number of 203 surveyed objects. Next in line were Vihula municipality (157 objects) in

Lääne-Viru County, Kõrgessaare municipality (103 objects), Kihelkonna municipality (100

objects) in Hiiumaa and Noarootsi municipality (92 objects) in Lääne County. The smallest

number of objects was in Oru municipality, Lääne County, which may be explained by its

short coastline and the fact that the majority of the coast area is made up by swamp

areas, where human activity has been scarce.

7.1 Division of the objects of cultural heritage by object types

To simplify the categorization and description of objects, the object types have been

placed in 6 larger groups based on their characteristic features.


15

Figure 6. Classification of objects of cultural heritage (by Kusmin 2009)

All the six groups were represented in the inventory results: Objects related to the

emergence of cultural landscape (Type Group I), Objects reflecting the history of land and

people through ages (Type Group II), Objects reflecting the history of community (Type

Group III), Objects reflecting traditional farm housekeeping (Type Group IV), Objects

reflecting local industries (Type Group V), Objects related to forests and forestry (Type

Group VI).

Figure 7 outlines the objects of cultural heritage represented in Estonian Green Belt and

the number of objects in them. Type Group III included most different object types. The

most numerous type group by objects of cultural heritage was Type Group II. Type Group

I had the least different object types and objects.


16

Figure 7. Division of objects of cultural heritage by object type (I – objects related to the emergence of cultural landscapes; II – objects reflecting the history of land and people through ages; III – objects reflecting the history of community; IV – objects reflecting traditional farm housekeeping; V – objects reflecting local industries; VI – objects related to forests and forestry.)

The type group related to the emergence of cultural landscapes (Type Group I) included

the object types of prehistoric strongholds and locations of prehistoric settlements and

burial mounds. The given objects have mostly perished during the centuries or scarcely

noticeable in the landscape, therefore such objects were only noted in five cases.

Type Group II, formed by objects reflecting the history of land and people through ages,

included the majority of objects of cultural heritage (464). This group included among

others the objects of the occupation period, military objects from various historic eras, and

memorial stones, which were the most numerous representatives of the group.

Type Group III, which had most different object types (24), was the group of objects

reflecting the history of community. The respective type group included e.g. stones with

heritage, stone bridges, cobblestone roads and stores.

The objects of Type Group IV reflected traditional farm housekeeping and 336 objects of

cultural heritage were represented in the group. The most numerous object types were

ancient homesteads, manor farmhouses, cellars and stone fences.

Type Group V, reflecting local industries, was represented with 168 objects. The majority

of the group was formed by objects related to fishing, hunting and bee-keeping; and

landing places, boat sheds and windmills.

Type Group VI was the object group related to forests and forestry, including objects of

four different types. The given type group was not numerous (13 objects). The scarcity of

objects related to forests and forestry is caused by the specificity of the type group, on the

one hand – the standalone type group reflects only objects related to one branch of


17

industry. On the other hand, such a situation is due to the location of the selection area in

the coastal area, where forestry is not so intensive.

The surveyed objects of cultural heritage divided into 72 different object types (including

the type group of unknown objects ???). Figure 8 shows object types with at least 1%

percentage share, including 1091 objects. 52 object types (177 objects) had a percentage

share less than 1%. Most, 309 objects, were related to the occupation period (OKU),

followed by the object types of ancient homesteads (TAK) with 177 objects, stones with

heritage (KIV) with 96 objects and manor farmhouses (TAH) with 73 objects. No evident

function could be determined for 50 objects; most of them were various foundations, the

initial purpose of which could not be determined.

Figure 8. Division of objects of cultural heritage by object types (AED - stone fences, enclosures; AST – settlement farms; JKM – places connected to hunting, fishing and apiculture, KEL – cellars; KIV– heritage stones, sacrificial and cult stones, KON – old place names; LAU – cattle-sheds, stables; MAL – memorial stones; MEM – old seamarks; MIL – military objects from the medieval period and previous centuries; MMS – military objects from the I and II World War, War of Independence; OKU – objects from the occupation era (barracks, watchtowers, fortifications); PKU – boathouses; PNL – cultural heritage objects from the Soviet Union period: milk trestles, production buildings, silo pits); SAD – ports, harbours; TAH – manor houses and homes; TAK – primeval farmsteads; TUV – windmills; VLG – boat harbours; ??? – unknown objects as foundations, the function of which could not be identified, objects represented by less than 1%).

The majority of objects related to the occupation period were coastal border-guard

constructions. During the occupation period, border-guard observation spots and towers

were built on the Northern and Western coast of Estonia at regular intervals, most of them

have preserved until today in various conditions. Most objects of the occupation period

were surveyed in Kuusalu, Kihelkonna and Kõrgessaare municipalities. In the municipality

of Kuusalu, the largest objects or objects groups are e.g. Pärispea, Hara and Suurpea

army settlements and the former Soviet Army‟s rocket base on Juminda peninsula. In

1953, buildings for a magnetism measuring station were erected in Hara Bay.


18

Figure 9. Border guard buildings of the Soviet period: a guard station in Vormsi island (Tomson,

P., 2010) and an ancillary observation point in Harju County (Juha, A., 2010).

177 homesteads and 74 manor farmhouses were identified while taking inventory of the

Green Belt. Some homesteads have only foundations and some yard trees left, and the

past existence of an actual farm had to be confirmed using historical maps. In quite many

homesteads, you can find the buildings with a historical value preserved or restored.

Regrettably, there have also been cases where new houses or ancillary buildings have

been built onto old homesteads, ignoring the historical value by using modern materials or

exterior design. The milieu as a whole has suffered but still many individual elements

faithful to the original have been utilized, such as farm garners made of crossbeams, wells

with swipes, saunas and also dry-stone walls that are so characteristic to Western

Estonia.

Figure 10. The oldest lighthouses surveyed in the shore area were the Pakri old lighthouse, built in 1760 (Left, photo: Juha, A., 2010) and the lower one of Suurupi lighthouses, made of wood and built in 1859 (Right, photo: Juha, A., 2010).

Estonian coastal areas are rich in boulders. Huge or interestingly shaped rocks, have

always been the inspiration for folk lore. The inventory recorded at least 96 rocks, which

were used for sacrifices or some other religious purpose and connected with legends. Not

surprisingly, the dominating items in the inventory were various landing spots, harbours

and other objects related to fishing. Naturally, many seamarks or lighthouses, originating

from various eras, were recorded, too.


19

7.2 Condition of the objects of cultural heritage and the factors affecting it

To determine the condition of the surveyed objects of cultural heritage, a scale was used,

dividing the objects into six according to the degree of preservation of their functionality:

A0 – the object is destroyed, there are no signs left on the landscape;

A1 – there are signs of the object left on the landscape but it is not possible to determine

the type of the object;

A2 – it is possible to determine the type of the object but less than 20% of the object or its

former functionality has remained;

A3 – 20-50% of the object or its former functionality has remained;

A4 – 50-90% of the object or its former functionality has remained;

A5 – the object is in good or very good condition.

Figure 11 shows the condition of the surveyed objects of cultural heritage. Besides the

above-mentioned scale classes, the classes of the conditions submitted and failed to be

determined were added as ranges (e.g. A3A4). Considering the inventory results, it

appears that determining a condition class as a range is due to the situation when an

object of cultural heritage is made up by several buildings in different conditions in one

complex. In the case of line or surface objects, it may also happen that a part of the object

has better preserved than the other part.

503 objects had preserved well or very well, i.e. 90100% of them had preserved.

5090% had preserved of the functionality of 274 surveyed objects; 160 objects had

preserved at 2050%. 137 surveyed objects had preserved at less than 20%. In 122

cases, the traces of the object had preserved on the landscape, but it was not possible to

determine the object type unequivocally and in 22 cases, the object had perished. In 31

cases, the surveyors had determined the condition of an object as a range and in 19

cases failed to determine it.

Most often, an object was determined as well or very well preserved in the case of KIV-

object type including sacrifice and cult stones, and stones with heritage. There is no doubt

that the fact that rocks cannot perish themselves plays a role here. As long as people

remember the legends related to them and do not transport them to another place or do

not explode them, they preserve in an excellent condition as objects of cultural heritage.


20

Figure 11. Condition of objects of cultural heritage in the Estonian Green Belt

Various landing places (harbour places, pier places, and other fisheries-related objects),

amounting to around a hundred, were mostly in a good or very good condition. One of the

reasons for these findings is definitely a significant interest towards the existence and

usability of small harbours. Because constructing new harbours is much more complicated

than developing existing ones, the latter is preferred. It is also important to focus on the

preserving of the milieu of a harbour complex and prefer the renovating of older harbour

buildings to building new ones.

It is noteworthy that although Hiiumaa is clearly a region with long maritime traditions, the

Soviet period has strongly cut off the local tradition of daily seafaring. There were almost

no small landing and boat-launching places with a smaller infrastructure. There were

some lower places without stones, where local people had simply pulled the boats onto

the shore and there were also some smaller harbours, but given the region‟s long

traditions, their number was very small (Riisalo 2011).

Figure 12. Toila harbour in East-Viru County is a good example of different stratifications of history and considering them today, too. The harbour is in active use even now as a bout harbour. Old fishing boats on the territory of the harbour and an adjacent granite pier provide a historical atmosphere. The harbour building is reconstructed by considering its original building style (Photos: Sapelkov, K., 2010).


21

The condition of the objects of cultural heritage is mostly affected by various human

impacts, which have been divided into eight different classes under the methodology:

LA –demolition, damage;

IL – deterioration of the condition of the object due to a decrease in human activity,

turning into scrublands;

KA – excavation works, damage to the surface;

EH – construction works which have damaged the original object;

MP – land improvement;

MR – cutting down forests;

PR – littering, dumping of waste;

MT – other activities.

Figure 13 shows the human impact occurring in the surveyed objects. Most often, in 496

cases, it was found that the object had been affected by a decrease in human activity,

turning into scrublands. The traces of demolition and damage appeared in 340 cases.

Littering and dumping of waste occurred in 140 cases and construction works, which had

damaged the original object in 60 cases. Damage to the surface occurred once. In the

case of four objects, it was found that the impact, which had occurred, was different from

the ones specified in the methodology. The impacts in question were scribbling and

bombing. Deterioration of the condition due to land improvement and cutting down forests

was not described.

Figure 13. Human impacts (IL deterioration of the condition of the object due to

a decrease in human activity, turning into scrublands; LA demolition, damage;

PR littering, dumping of waste; EH construction works which have damaged

the original object; MT other activities, please specify; KA excavation works,

damage to the surface)

A great percentage share of a decrease in human activity has been partially caused by

the occupation period, when the people living near the coast were forced to move. Many

farmsteads dropped out of use, decomposed and their surroundings turned into

scrublands. In some places, only few traces (fruit-trees, yard trees and stone fences) have


22

preserved of former farmsteads today. Another important factor was the departure of the

Soviet Army from Estonia, therefore many army settlements had ceased to be used and

have not found a new function or owner until today. Demolition and damage were most

often described in the case of occupation-period objects, which have easily fallen in the

power of vandals. Many small-size observation points have become the object of revenge

by means of damaging the cabins, scribbling the walls and littering. Larger technical

observation points and guard stations have preserved in a better condition. The bigger

buildings are more durable, although some of them have also been left unused and

devastated. However, in some cases old military buildings have also found a function

today as either tourist objects or even residential houses.

Figure 14. Military buildings of the Soviet period have been presently taken into use as tourism objects. The former border-guard station in Saka, Ida-Viru County and an ancillary observation tower in Toila have been rebuilt into observation towers for tourists (Photos: Lõhmus, L.,2010).

The inventory also specified the human impact, which could affect the objects in the

future. Figure 15 shows the achieved results. Most often, in 307 cases, it was found that

the object might be damaged or demolished in the future. The risk of littering was

highlighted in 212 cases. The risk of a decrease in human activity was described in 146

cases and construction works in 144 cases. Negative impact arising from excavation

works, land improvement and cutting down forests was considered less important.


23

Figure 15. Possible human impacts (LA demolition, damage; PR littering, dumping of waste;

IL deterioration of the condition of the object due to a decrease in human activity, turning into

scrublands; EH construction works which have damaged the original object; MR – cutting down

forests; MT – other activities; MP – land improvement; KA excavation works, damage to the surface).

Compared to current impact, the human impact, which may occur in the future, includes

more impact due to cutting down forests, land improvement, excavation works, littering

and construction activities. The impact arising from a decrease in human activity will

decrease.

7.3 Location of objects of cultural heritage in different land parcels

During the inventory, the location in following land parcels was determined:

RR – strip of beach (area covered with sand and shingle which has little or no vegetation);

MM – forest area;

RM – natural meadow;

PM – area used for agricultural purposes;

RB – swamp or bog;

VE – body of water;

EM – area used for housing, gardens or yards;

TM – roads;

MU – other types of land.

Figure 16 shows the location of objects of cultural heritage in the land parcels, where the

type groups of objects located in several parcels and with unspecified parcels have been

added to the above-mentioned scale.


24

Figure 16. Location of objects of cultural heritage in land parcels (MM – forest area; EM – area used for housing, gardens or yards; RM – natural meadow; RR – strip of beach (area covered with sand and shingle which has little or no vegetation); MU – other types of land; VE – body of water;

TM – roads; PM – area used for agricultural purposes; More than one several parcels had been

mentioned at fieldwork, Indefinite no location of the object in a land parcel had been determined at fieldwork).

Most objects of cultural heritage were located in forestland (in 310 cases), where most

objects were of the occupation period or stones with heritage. 288 objects were located in

housing, garden and yard land; the majority of these objects were farmsteads and manor

farmhouses. 270 objects of cultural heritage were surveyed in natural meadows; most of

them were occupation-period objects, ancient farmsteads, stones with heritage and

windmills. No object of cultural heritage surveyed was located in a swamp or bog. In 101

cases several land parcels were recorded as a location of an object, the most numerous

cases were forest area interchanging with natural meadow and a strip of beach

interchanging with natural meadow. The smallest number of objects was located in the

area used for agricultural purposes (5 cases) and roads (8 cases). In two cases, the land

parcel failed to be determined.

7.4 Location of objects of cultural heritage in the Green Belt

During the inventory, information was gathered about the objects in 27 municipalities

located in the Estonian Green Belt. It occurred that the majority of objects of cultural

heritage are located in Kuusalu municipality (186), proceeded by Vihula (149), Kihelkonna

(80), Torgu (79) and Noarootsi (78) municipalities. The smallest number of objects of

cultural heritage was found in Oru (1) and Salme (1) municipalities (Figure 17).


25

Figure 17. Location of objects of cultural heritage in the municipalities of Estonian Green Belt

Most occupation-period objects, stones with heritage, ancient homesteads and

boathouses were found in the territory of Kuusalu municipality. Good examples of the

Soviet Union period are, e.g. Hara harbour, which used to be a harbour of the Soviet

Union's naval training area and military objects that have remained from the Institute of

Submarine Demagnetization in Suurpea. The multiplicity of homesteads might be a result

of the fact that Kuusalu municipality was the location of numerous ancient coastal villages.

The shoreline of Estonian Green Belt7 is 1396 km long. The municipalities with the longest

shorelines are Vormsi, Kõrgessaare, Kuusalu and Lümanda. When analyzing the location

of objects of cultural heritage per one kilometre (Figure 18), it was found that the objects

are located most densely in Harku (2,48 items/km), Vaivara (2,36 items/km), Lüganuse

(1,92 items/km) municipalities and in the city of Paldiski (2,14 items/km). The objects of

cultural heritage are most sparsely represented in Oru (0,08 items/km), Salme (0,13

items/km), Mustjala (0,31 items/km) and Vormsi (0,41 items/km) municipalities.

7 The length of the coastline of the local governments has been found by comparing the coinciding

of the central line of Estonian Green Belt (Sepp 2010) with the municipalities‟ administrative division borders bordering the sea (Map of Estonian Administrative and Settlement Division as of 12.06.2009).


26

Figure 18. Number of objects of cultural heritage per one kilometre in the municipalities located in Estonian Green Belt

The majority of objects of cultural heritage in Harku municipality are objects from the

occupation period (OKU) and military objects from earlier periods (MIL), which can be

found in abundance in the territories of Suurupi and Muraste villages. In Lüganuse and

Vaivara municipality the occupation-period objects (OKU) also prevail, followed by fishery-

related objects reflecting the everyday life of coastal homesteads, manor farmhouses,

cellars (Lüganuse municipality) and objects with heritage, e.g. stones and place names

(Vaivara municipality).

Figure 19. Paldiski is the second largest city in Estonia by size. It is remarkable for the fact that of the overall area of 102 km

2, only 5,4 km

2 is densely populated. From 1944 to 1994, Paldiski was a

closed military city. The Soviet Army established its fleet navy base in the city and majority of the civil population was evacuated. In 1962, a Soviet nuclear-submarine training centre was founded in Paldiski. The city together with Pakri islands was closed and classified. Left: ruins of an observation tower. Right: a steam- locomotive water tower in Paldiski (Photos: Juha. A., 2010).


27

Figure 20. Municipalities with seashore areas rich in objects of cultural heritage. Torgu municipality in Saaremaa; Pühalepa municipality in Hiiumaa; Paldiski city and Harku, Jõelähtme, Keila, Kuusalu and Viimsi municipalities in Harju County; Vihula and Viru-Nigula municipalities in Lääne-Viru County; Aseri, Lüganuse and Vaivara municipalities in Ida-Viru County.

The comparison of the types of objects in various municipalities shows that the majority of

the objects are from the occupation period (OKU) – they were the most common type of

objects in 19 out of 27 municipalities. Aseri municipality is remarkable for the fact that it

was one of the few local governments with no occupation-period objects of cultural

heritage (OKU), with industrial objects of cultural heritage objects of the Soviet period

(PNL) prevailing, specifically because of a former ceramics factory, located in the coastal

area.

7.5 Protection of objects of cultural heritage

The Constitution of the Republic of Estonia (RT I 1992) states that the purpose of

developing a state is to ensure the preservation of its people and culture through ages.

Protection of objects of cultural heritage can be provided through various measures in

Estonia. According to the Heritage Conservation Act, this is achieved through taking the

monuments under national protection and the creation of heritage conservation areas.

Nature Conservation Act denotes to cultural heritage and its protection in the context of

protected areas and individual protected natural objects (Kaljuvee 2007). Elements of

natural environment are protected as individual protected natural objects. Amongst them

are various natural objects with scientific, aesthetical or historical-cultural value, such as

trees, springs, boulders and the like. In the case of protected areas, cultural heritage is

mostly preserved, studied and introduced in the composition of national parks and

landscape conservation areas (Looduskaitseseadus RT I 2004).


28

In the case of objects that are under national protection or located in a protected area, the

protection of objects of cultural heritage is provided by protection rules. Forest Act (RT I

2006) provides the landowners a chance to receive a grant to conserve and maintain

objects of cultural heritage located in forestland (Lõhmus 2010).

Figure 21. Objects of cultural heritage divided by type of protection (the total of 1268 objects).

Figure 21 shows objects previously known8 (objects subject to nature conservation or heritage conservation, objects identified during previous inventories) and new objects of cultural heritage found in the course of the Baltic Green Belt project. Thus, 80% of the surveyed objects in the Estonian Green Belt were not recorded as objects of cultural heritage before.

7.6 Objects of cultural heritage previously known

Of previously known objects of cultural heritage, the majority were objects identified during

previous inventories – the total of 173 objects. It must be noted that these objects are not

subject to national protection. The objects of cultural heritage are recorded in the Estonian

Nature Information System EELIS and their protection depends on the free will of the

landowner. Of objects identified during previous inventories, the majority were objects of

the occupation period (OKU) – 40 objects. There were also a large number of military

objects of previous periods (MIL) – 10 objects, military objects of World Wars I and II and

the Estonian War of Independence (MMS) – 6 objects. Distinctive to the coastal areas, a

number of piers (VLG) – 9 objects and harbours (SAD) – 5 objects had been identified.

8 EELIS database and the data from the National Register of Cultural Monuments as of preparing the fieldwork maps, – from August 2009 to August 2010, depending on the surveyed region, were used to compare the results.


29

There were 7 seamarks (MEM), 9 homesteads (TAK) and 8 place names (KON)

previously known.

7.7 Objects of cultural heritage subject to heritage conservation

Of objects subject to heritage conservation, 60 objects (5% of total amount) were

surveyed (Figure 22). Most of them were objects of the occupation period (OKU) – 60

objects, military objects of previous periods (MIL) – 5% objects, military objects of the

World Wars I and II, and the Estonian War of Independence (MMS) – 23 objects. There

were also numerous seamarks (MEM) – 9 objects and manor farmhouses (TAH) – 5

objects.

Figure 22. Objects subject to heritage conservation by typology (OKU - objects from the

occupation era (barracks, watchtowers, fortifications); MEM – old seamarks; MIL – military objects

from the medieval period and previous centuries; TAH – manor houses and homes; MMS – military

objects from the I and II World War, War of Independence; CUL – cult houses, churches; KAE –

wells, pasture wells, stone troughs; MUK – prehistoric burial grounds; AED – stone fences,

enclosures; HAO – objects founded as joint projects or during public relief works; HAU – graves;

KAV – old chapel ruins; KBM – chapel hills; KEL – cellars; KIV– heritage stones, sacrificial and cult

stones; LIN – prehistoric strongholds; MAL – memorial stones; MOA – objects of manor

architecture; RTR – railway facilities (narrow-gauge railways, bridges, railway stations, water

towers); SAD – ports, harbours).

7.8 Objects of cultural heritage subject to nature conservation

Of protected objects of nature, which were identified as objects of cultural heritage within

this project, the overwhelming majority (10 objects out of 12) were stones with heritage,

sacrificial and cult stones (KIV), 1 object was a sacred grove (HII) and 1 object was an

ancient tree (PUU).


30

8. Current human pressure in the Estonian Green Belt

Besides the beautiful nature, cultural and military heritage, there are several newer

constructions in the coastal areas, which can be both showplaces and disgraces.

Compared to many other European countries, the Estonian coastal areas are in a better

condition. However, the issues with chaotic and in a way illegal construction activity, the

lack of public accesses to the shore path or the closing of the accesses in conjunction with

development activities, the pressure of real estate development on the coastal forests and

the pollution accompanying the visiting of beaches (Sinijärv 2005) still remain.

Construction pressure on the coastal areas increased just after the restoration of

independence in Estonia, when the closed coastal areas were re-opened and the

privatization of land started. To avoid the perishing of natural biotic communities, restrict

the unfavourable influence of human activity and direct and maintain the inhabitation

structure and public accesses characteristic to the shore, the Nature Conservation Act

(RT I 2004) provides for zones restricting the land use on the shore. These are the limited

management zone, the building exclusion zone and the water protection zone.

Unfortunately the National Audit Office found during the audit in 2007 that the natural

values of shores and banks are insufficiently protected from private interests and illegal

construction and the shore and bank values may be damaged to the extent that may be

later expensive or impossible to restore.

Figure 23. Shore paths are often closed off on seashores with high construction pressure. The 10-metre-wide shore path on the seashore must be passable by foot for everyone. Regrettably, there are cases, where landowners, in their desire for privacy have closed this strip of land, too, by erecting fences and complementing them with menacing signboards (Photos: Juha, A., 2010).

During the inventory conducted in the Estonian Green Belt, the following instances of

current human pressure were distinguished:

Buildings in the building exclusion zone (EH);

Landscape disturbances, i.e. elements, that lower the quality of the landscape,

such as illegal rubbish depositories, excavated soil, etc. (MH);


31

New disagreeable buildings outside the building exclusion zone (UUS).

In mainland Estonia, the buildings in the building exclusion zone (EH) were marked on the

fieldwork map, considering the line marking the building exclusion zone, i.e. 100 m, taking

into account the average water level. On the islands, the width of the building exclusion

zone is 200 m.

This project did not find out, whether the building exclusion zone stipulated by law has

been reduced for these surveyed objects. Upon the inventory, the goal was to get an

overview of construction activity as pressure on shore areas, not of its lawfulness. The

reduction of building exclusion zone is possible as an exception with the approval of the

Environmental Board with a comprehensive or a detail plan (Nature Conservation Act RT

I, 2004). The reasons may be natural conditions or former buildings, which will be

established by historical maps.

If wanting to have an overview in the future, whether surveyed buildings in the building

exclusion zone (EH) are lawfully founded, each local government must be contacted

separately. Obtaining the data may prove difficult, because in the 1990s, there were still

some mistakes in the local governments' planning and building procedures, and besides,

not all materials may have been preserved. It is the same reason why the State Register

of Construction Works9 does not include the complete information about buildings and the

legal basis of their erection (National Audit Office 2011).

The inventory conducted in the Estonian Green Belt recorded 261 instances of current

human pressure (Figure 24). Most instances (184) were buildings in the building exclusion

zone – including residential development areas, odd summerhouses and saunas,

residential houses and other buildings. The same building types prevail in the type of

human pressure UUS, which was surveyed on 43 occasions.

Figure 24. Current human pressure in the Green Belt (EH – buildings in the building exclusion zone; MH – landscape disturbance; UUS – new disagreeable buildings outside the building exclusion zone).

9 The State Register of Construction Works is a state register coordinated by Estonian Ministry of Economic

Affairs and Communications, where the data of all buildings, their locations, building permissions and authorizations of use are recorded.


32

Landscape disturbances (MH) were mostly illegal garbage dumps, concrete blocks and other types of construction rubbish, but also gravel extraction holes and campsites. Landscape disturbances were described on 34 occasions.

Figure 25. Location of instances of current human pressure (ICHP) by municipalities

Kõrgessaare municipality in Hiiu County had the largest number of instances of current

human pressure – 35 instances, while Pühalepa municipality in Hiiu County had 18

instances and Kihelkonna municipality in Saare County 20 instances. Considering the

number of instances of current human pressure per one kilometre of coastline, the local

governments of Harju County (the municipalities of Harku, Jõelähtme, Keila and Viimsi)

stuck out, being under a great construction pressure, primarily due to their locations in the

vicinity of the capital. The municipality having the greatest number of instances per one

kilometre of coastline is Harku – 0.735 instances/km (See the figure 26). Instances of

current human pressure were also found in Viru-Nigula municipality, Lääne-Viru County –

14 objects, i.e. 0.454 instances/km.


33

Figure 26. Local governments with the highest human pressure on the shore area of

the Green Belt

Most of the surveyed instances of current human pressure (107) were located on the

residential land. It refers to the earlier established fact that most instances of human

pressure are residential houses and summerhouses or their outbuildings. Current human

pressure affected forestland in 47 cases, grassland in 34 cases, shore strips in 28 cases,

road land in 3 cases and water area in 2 cases. Other land parcels were specified in 10

cases and in 29 cases, the instance stretched out to several land parcels or was located

on a transition of land parcels.


34

Figure 27. Location of objects of cultural heritage in land parcels (EM – area used for housing, gardens or yards; MM – forest area; RM – natural meadow; RR – strip of beach (area covered with sand and shingle which has little or no vegetation); MU – other types of land; TM – roads; VE –

body of water; PM – area used for agricultural purposes; More then one several parcels had been

mentioned during the field work, Indefinite no location of the object in a land parcel had been determined during the field work).

8.1 Condition of instances of current human pressure

Unlike assessing the condition of objects of cultural heritage, where the condition of all

objects was estimated on a single scale, the condition of instances of modern human

pressure was assessed according to their types.

Building in the building exclusion zone (EH):

EH0 – the building is under construction;

EH1 – the building is completed and functioning;

EH2 – dilapidated and presumably abandoned building.

Landscape disturbance (MH):

MH0 – the disturbance has taken place in the past, the signs of the disturbance are

indistinguishable or insignificant;

MH1 – the disturbance has taken place in the past, the signs of the disturbance are

noticeable;

MH2 – the disturbance is ongoing.

New disagreeable buildings (UUS):

UUS0 – a conspicuous new building, which is not located in the building exclusion zone,

but dominates the landscape. A half-completed building;


35

UUS1 – a new building in the place of an old building or a conspicuous new building which

is not located in a building exclusion zone, but dominates the landscape. A completed

building;

UUS2 – a building which has been constructed during the last couple of decades, but is

disintegrating or (assumed to be) abandoned.

There are similarities between buildings in the building exclusion zone (EH) and new

buildings (UUS). On both scales, „0“ marks a building under construction, „1“ marks a

completed, functioning building, „2“ marks a disintegrating, abandoned building.

Figure 28. Condition of instances of current human pressure.

More than any other objects, the selection area included completed and functioning new

buildings – 160 instances in the building exclusion zone (EH1) and 40 instances outside

the building exclusion zone (UUS1). 10 instances of buildings under construction were in

the building exclusion zone (EH0) and 2 instances outside the building exclusion zone

(UUS0). Disintegrating abandoned buildings (EH2) were found on 14 instances.

Most landscape disturbances were continuing (20 instances) or had happened in the past,

but were still conspicuous (12 instances). Only 2 instances of inconspicuous landscape

disturbances were recorded. This can be explained by the fact that disturbances having

happened in the past are barely noticeable, and are not considered disturbing, as nature

has alleviated them a great deal.


36

9. Location of objects in the protected areas

To date, a remarkable proportion of Estonia‟s coastal areas is included in protected areas,

and therefore a considerable number of OCHs are located there. Indeed, 35% (529

objects) of the surveyed OCHs are located in the coastal protected areas. The total of 23

types of objects of cultural heritage was represented in protected areas. Most of them

were objects of the occupation period (136), followed by sacrificial and cult stones (58),

homesteads (32) and military objects of World Wars I and II and the Estonian War of

Independence (24).

The majority of OCHs in protected areas are located in Lahemaa National Park, mainly

due to Lahemaa having the longest coastline of all the coastal protected areas,

approximately 167 km10. There are 343 OCHs in the National Park, equating to a ratio of

2.06 OCH km-1 of coast. For comparison, Nõva Landscape Reserve, has 29 OCHs in

approximately 25 kilometres of coastline and a ratio of 1.18 OCH km-1 of coast and

Vilsandi National Park has 47 OCHs in approximately 111 kilometres of coastline and a

ratio of 0.42 OCH km-1 of coast.

10

The length of the coastline of protected areas has been found by comparing the coinciding of the central line of Estonian Green Belt (Sepp 2010) with the border of the protected area (EELIS as of 16.02.2011) bordering the sea.


37

10. Applicability of the inventory results

Coastal landscapes embody a wealth of cultural heritage. Naturally, the later stage in

history, the more marks of it have preserved within a landscape. The finding of the traces

from earlier periods in the landscape becomes harder and harder. To avoid losing a part

of our history, it is important to record it. However, the coast is under a strong pressure

today, it is both affected by people‟s private interests and a need for coastal landscape as

a public good.

When supplementing L. Tarang‟s (2005) list of the necessity of the inventory objects of

cultural heritage and taking into account the results of the inventory of shore areas, it can

be concluded that the inventory of the objects of cultural heritage is necessary,

because:

1. It enables to create a single database of objects of cultural heritage. Currently

the National Heritage Board is administering monuments under national protection.

Several natural objects related to legends and heritage are subject to nature

conservation. Odd single messages are represented in archives and museums,

many inventories have been object-based or subject-centred. So far, the most

systematic example of surveying objects of cultural heritage is a project of the

inventory of forest objects of cultural heritage led by the State Forest Management

Centre (RMK). It resulted in founding Estonian Nature Information System's

(EELIS) database of objects of cultural heritage. The inventory conducted in the

shore areas of Estonian Green Belt as a part of the Baltic Green Belt project,

contributes to creating a single database of objects of cultural heritage. Thus, the

results of the inventory of shore areas enable to complement the respective data

of EELIS concerning the objects of Estonian cultural heritage. In the future this

database could become the country's most extensive and consistent database of

objects of cultural heritage;

2. It helps to form a reserve of cultural values and objects with heritage

conservation value. More valuable (and in some cases, most extant) objects may

later turn out to be so valuable that they will be placed under heritage

conservation. In the course of the inventory of objects of cultural heritage, objects

with international or national importance and subject to be taking under national

protection may be discovered; However, no such proposals were made to the

National Heritage Board during the current inventory;

3. It creates data and an information source, which can be used for spatial

planning and making decisions about land use – access to this information

helps the local governments to consider cultural aspects, too, while making

decisions about construction works. Thus, development activity can be directed in

such a manner that objects of cultural heritage will preserve or even receive a new

meaningful function or become more exhibited. Presently too little attention is paid


38

to the comprehensive plan's function to determine the valuable elements of

landscape and to establish them the terms of protection and use. In addition,

comprehensive and detailed plans can be used for proposing to place areas and

objects under protection. A planning process that involves the public gives a

chance for local residents and people interested in the region to express their

attitude towards the place's cultural heritage. Amongst other things, information

about the existence of objects of cultural heritage may be necessary when making

decisions about forest management;

4. It allows organizing owner protection via awareness-raising, so that the objects

would not be destroyed because of ignorance – in some cases, local governments

and the Environmental Board can draw the landowners‟ attention to the values

located on their land units. It is possible to apply for a grant11 to maintain the

objects of cultural heritage located on forestland. The more awareness is raised

about valuing the objects of cultural heritage the better the chance for creating a

feeling of heritage ownership and respecting heritage protection.

5. It allows raising the area's reputation and the local residents' self–esteem via

awareness-raising and introduction – introducing the objects of cultural heritage to

visitors gives a chance to present the history of the region more broadly. Outside

interest may also strengthen the local residents‟ values and identity as they realize

that things so commonplace to them are interesting and special to others;

6. It enables to construct regional study and natural history training trails and

routes to introduce cultural heritage and natural values. In regions with a large

concentration of objects of cultural heritage, introductory hiking trails may be

created. In this way, the development of regional tourism industry can be

contributed to. However, risks must be also be considered: e.g., a constant flow of

visitors may cause stress to local residents. In addition, there is a danger of

damaging the very object's condition, e.g. by littering or trampling the

surroundings. Hence is not enough to just mark trails and install billboards. The

condition of the object must be constantly observed, so that we could adopt the

measures to prevent damaging the objects, if necessary;

7. It enhances the landscape's general value as a recreational area – there are

not only beautiful seashores in Estonia, but also coastal villages with glorified

history, famed summer holiday areas, boat and yacht harbours of dignified age

and the swing sites where already our ancestors loved to gather;

8. It allows further research to analyse the regions' life and working cultures

comparatively; and in the long run it helps to study the changes in culture

and landscapes and processes accompanying them – in essence, the

database of cultural heritage is an endless task. Every new era leaves some sort

11

Pursuant to the Forest Act (RT I 2006, 30, 232) the private forest-owners and forest associations can apply for a grant to preserve heritage culture. The purpose of this grant is to guarantee the preservation of heritage culture and its introduction to public.


39

of heritage. A consistent management and supplementation of the database allows

conducting different researches.

The aforementioned reasons are definitely not a complete list of possibilities for the

“application” of the objects of cultural heritage. It is rather a small reminder of the reasons

why the traces of previous generations on the landscape are important.

Figure 29. One possibility to protect and conserve objects of cultural heritage is to mark them in the municipality‟s comprehensive plan as a valuable element of landscape. Left: Österby port pier, which is determined in the comprehensive plan of Noarootsi municipality as a regionally important object of cultural history. Right: the lower day mark of the joint course of Telisna, which was marked in the same planning and which has been taken under national protection as a monument of heritage protection (Photos: Lõhmus, L., 2009; Sepp, T., 2009).

Usually objects of cultural heritage are related to a specific activity or aim. However, it is

not feasible for us to be able to preserve the processes in the case of all objects of cultural

heritage, as the lifestyle, out of which they arose, has disappeared. It is not practical to

preserve all heritage in the former shape – sometimes it makes more sense to improve

the object and give it a new purpose, by keeping in mind that the knowledge about the

original object should be maintained.

In some cases, the preservation of all objects of cultural heritage may not make sense,

especially when (Parts 2004, Riisalo 2011):

a sufficient quantity of similar or comparable heritage exists, so that there is no

need to preserve all objects. At that, it is important to select the best,

representational specimens and adopt the measures to protect them.

too little has preserved of the heritage in the landscape or a single representative

of a larger group has preserved, the value of which is not so high. However, when

no heritage has preserved in the landscape, the location and knowledge of the

initial object, heritage, can be conserved.

there is no access to the heritage or it is impossible to use (observe) it; it is not

known, whether the object is so valuable that it has to be taken under protection.

In that case, our actions may be confined to fixing the situation (if possible) and

leaving the object unaffected.


40

Thus, we cannot say that all findings deserve equal protection, however, it allows basing

the subsequent decisions on much more comprehensive knowledge than earlier ones. It is

not necessary to preserve each object, if a sufficient quantity of similar heritage exists. It is

possible to choose the best, more characteristic objects and adopt measures to preserve

them. In case only a small, inexpressive part of an object has preserved or it is hard to

access, the uniqueness of the object must also be considered, when making decisions

about it. Considering that objects of cultural heritage is quite comprehensive and it is not

practicable to protect all objects of cultural heritage at the national level, it is the local

community, which can assess, whether the heritage has the values, which need efforts for

preservation and promotion. Mostly it depends on the local people, whether an object will

perish, be conserved or find a new function.

The inventory of objects of cultural heritage provided an overview of the heritage of shore

areas within the shore areas of all Estonian Green Belt. At the same time, the mapping of

current human pressure showed clearly a number of risk factors, which may affect both

the values of objects of cultural heritage and nature. The knowledge of values and threats

that may be found in our coastal areas, will help to preserve these values and avert the

threats and also to prevent them in the future.


41

11. References

1. Callegari, F., Vallega, A., 2002. Coastal cultural heritage: a management tool.

Journal of Cultural Heritage, 3, 227–236.

2. Graham, B. Ashworth, G.J., Tunbridge. E. 2000: A Geography of Heritage. Power,

Culture, & Economy. London: Arnold

3. Hellström, K., 2001. Väärtuslike maastike määratlemine. Metoodika ja kogemused

Viljandi maakonnas. Keskkonnaministeerium, Tallinn, 77 lk.

4. Howard, P., Pinder, D., 2003. Cultural heritage and sustainability in the coastal

zone: experiences in south west England. Journal of Cultural Heritage 4, 57–68.

5. Kaljuvee, R., 2007. Pärandkultuuri süstematiseerimisest. Rmt: Meikar, T. (toim).

Väike pärandkultuuri käsiraamat. Eesti Loodusfoto, Tartu, lk 14–17.

6. Kusmin, J., 2005. Pärandkultuur metsas, selle inventeerimine ja metoodika endise

Läänemaa Velise valla näitel. Rmt: Meikar, T. (toim), Akadeemilise Metsaseltsi

toimetised XXI. Pärandkultuur Eesti metsades. Eesti Metsaselts, Jõgevamaa, lk

23–50.

7. Kusmin, J., 2009. Pärandkultuuri inventeerimise metoodika. Projekti „Metsanduslik

pärandkultuur – ühise kultuuriruumi avardaja“ inventeerijate koolitus 03-

04.03.2009, Mäetaguse.

8. Külvik, M., 2007. Pärandkultuur maastikus, maastik kui pärandkultuur. Ettekanne

19.12.2007. konverentsil “Pärandkultuur metsas – väärtustamata väärtused”

Tartus. Kättesaadav: http://pk.rmk.ee/parandkultuur/kylvik.pdf (19.03.2011).

9. Leal Filho, W. (toim.), 2006. Meetodid ajaloolise kultuuripärandi säilimiseks.

Castles of Tomorrow. Kättesaadav: Rahvusraamatukogu arhiivis DIGAR.

10. Looduskaitseseadus, RT I 2004, 38, 258. Kättesaadav:

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=13233620 (20.02.2011).

11. Lõhmus, L., 2010. Pärandkultuuri objektide inventuur ja kaitsekorralduse analüüs Eesti rohevöös. Eesti Maaülikooli Põllumajandus- ja Keskkonnainstituut.

12. Maandi, P., 2009. The silent articulation of private land rights in Soviet Estonia: A

geographical perspective. Geoforum, 40, 454–464.

13. Metsaseadus, RT I 2006, 30, 232. Kättesaadav:


14. Muinsuskaitseseadus, RT I 2002, 27, 153. Kättesaadav:


15. Palang, H., Sepp, K., Sooväli, H., 2006. Eesti maastikupärand ja selle hoidmise

võimalused. Rmt: Punning, J.-M., (toim). Eesti jätkusuutliku arengu teel. Eesti

Entsüklopeediakirjastus, lk 75–83.

16. Parts, P-K., 2007. Vaateid pärandimajandusele teoorias ja praktikas.

Kättesaadav:http://www.kirikiri.ee/article.php3?id_article=388 (25.03.2011).

17. Paulus, A., 2010. Lahemaa ajaloolistest maastikest. Rmt: Paulus, A. (koost.)

Uurimusi Lahemaa ajaloolistest maastikest. Keskkonnaamet, lk 5–8.

18. Peterson, K., P. Kuldna. (koost.) 2005. Rannaalade väärtused ja nende kaitse. SEI

väljaanne nr 7, SEI-Tallinn, 104 lk.

19. Planeerimisseadus, RT I 2002, 99, 579. Kättesaadav:


http://pk.rmk.ee/parandkultuur/kylvik.pdf

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=13233620





42

20. Riigikontroll, 2007. Ehitustegevus ranna- ja kaldaalal. Riigikontrolli aruanne

Riigikogule, Tallinn.

21. Riigikontroll, 2011. Ehitustegevus kiire elanike arvu kasvuga omavalitsustes.

Riigikontrolli aruanne Riigikogule, Tallinn.

22. Riisalo, S., 2011. Hiiumaa militaarpärandi analüüs. Eesti Maaülikooli

Põllumajandus- ja Keskkonnainstituut.

23. Sepp, K., Lõhmus, L., 2010. Pärandkultuuri objektide ja rannikuala seisundi

inventeerimine Euroopa rohevöös Eesti rannikualade näitel. Eesti Maaülikooli

Põllumajandus- ja keskkonnainstituut.

24. Sinijärv, U., 2005. Veekogu kaldale ehitamise õiguslik raamistik Eestis. Peterson,

K., P. Kuldna. (koost.) Rannaalade väärtused ja nende kaitse. SEI väljaanne nr 7,

SEI-Tallinn, lk 16–18.

25. Tarang, L., 2005. Eesti metsades leiduva pärandkultuuri olukorrast ja hoiust. Rmt:

Meikar, T. (toim). Akadeemilise Metsaseltsi toimetised XXI. Pärandkultuur Eesti

metsades. Eesti Metsaselts, Jõgevamaa, lk 5–22.

26. Tarang, L., 2007. Mets kui kultuurinähtus. Eesti metsades leiduva pärandkultuuri

olukorrast ja hoiust. Rmt: Meikar, T. (toim) Väike pärandkultuuri käsiraamat. Eesti

Loodusfoto, Tartu, lk 9–11.

27. Tarang, L., 2008. Pärandkultuuri mõistest ja pärandkultuuri jäädvustamisest.

Kättesaadav: http://www.hot.ee/letarang/Parandkultuurimoistest.htm (14.12.2009)

28. Valk, H., 2007. Kohanimede tähendusest: ajalooline mõõde. Ettekanne

19.12.2007. konverentsil “Pärandkultuur metsas – väärtustamata väärtused”

Tartus. Kättesaadav: http://pk.rmk.ee/parandkultuur/valk.pdf (19.04.2010).

29. Vallega, A., 2003. The coastal cultural heritage facing coastal management.

Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4, 5–24.

30. Veersalu, T., 2010. Rannikualade kaitse ja säilitamise head tavad ruumilises

planeerimises. Käsikiri.


43

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1. Division of objects of cultural heritage by typology

ANNEX 2. Division of objects of cultural heritage by condition

ANNEX 3. Division of objects of cultural heritage by municipalities

ANNEX 4. Objects of cultural heritage previously protected/known

ANNEX 5. Objects located in protected areas

ANNEX 6. Current human pressure

ANNEX 7. Surveyed objects by municipalities


44

ANNEX 1. DIVISION OF OBJECTS OF CULTURAL HERITAGE BY TYPOLOGY

Table. Division of the objects of cultural heritage by object types More than 1 %

Less than 1 %

Code Objects Percent Code Objects Percent

AED 34 2,7 ALL 1 0,1

AST 16 1,3 EOM 1 0,1

JKM 48 3,8 GDM 5 0,4

KEL 37 2,9 HAO 2 0,2

KIV 96 7,6 HAU 4 0,3

KON 24 1,9 HEK 9 0,7

LAU 19 1,5 HII 1 0,1

MAL 16 1,3 KAE 8 0,6

MEM 40 3,2 KAR 3 0,2

MIL 27 2,1 KAT 10 0,8

MMS 41 2,8 KAV 2 0,2

OKU 309 24,4 KBM 1 0,1

PKU 30 2,4 KIM 1 0,1

PNL 36 2,8 KIR 1 0,1

SAD 44 3,5 KIS 5 0,4

TAH 73 5,8 KOK 2 0,2

TAK 117 9,2 KOO 5 0,4

TUV 17 1,3 KOR 5 0,4

VLG 22 1,7 KUL 4 0,3

??? 45 3,9 KUV 4 0,3

Less than1% 177 14,0 LEK 1 0,1

Total 1268 100,0 LIN 2 0,2

LLA 1 0,1

MKT 3 0,2

MNT 2 0,2

MOA 9 0,7

MOK 3 0,2

MPO 7 0,6

MTH 3 0,2

MTS 2 0,2

MUA 1 0,1

MUK 2 0,2

PAM 3 0,2

PIM 4 0,3

POE 8 0,6

POK 1 0,1

POP 2 0,2

PRT 4 0,3

PUM 1 0,1

PUU 1 0,1

RAH 3 0,2

REE 4 0,3

RTR 4 0,3

SAT 2 0,2

SAU 5 0,4

SIM 2 0,2

SOS 1 0,1

TAA 7 0,6

TET 4 0,3

TOA 2 0,2

TVV 8 0,6

VAL 1 0,1

Total 177 14,0


45

Figure. Objects of cultural heritage with a representation less than 1% in the shore areas of Estonian Green Belt


46

ANNEX 2. DIVISION OF OBJECTS OF CULTURAL HERITAGE BY CONDITION

Table. Objects of cultural heritage with a representation more than 1% by condition

??? AED AST JKM KEL KIV KON LAU MAL MEM MIL MMS PKU PNL SAD TAH TAK TUV VLG OKU

In range 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 14

Indefinite 4 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 1 2 1

A1 17 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 1 7 7 0 1 0 3 31 5 1 28

A2 10 5 3 8 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 24 0 3 2 7 12 3 6 31

A3 4 6 1 3 6 0 0 5 1 1 6 6 2 0 4 6 7 3 0 87

A4 0 11 0 18 15 2 0 4 2 16 7 2 7 11 9 4 20 1 4 110

A5 6 8 12 13 11 81 23 9 13 21 2 1 21 21 27 48 38 4 9 38

Total 45 34 16 48 37 96 24 19 16 40 27 41 30 36 44 73 117 17 22 309

1091

Figure. Objects of cultural heritage with a representation more than 1% by condition


47

Table. Objects of cultural heritage with a representation less than 1% by condition

ALL EOM GDM HAO HAU HEK HII KAE KAR KAT KAV KBM KIM KIR KIS KOK KOO KOR KUL KUV LEK LIN LLA MKT MNT MOA MOK MPO MTH MTS MUA MUK

In range 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indefinite 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

A1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

A2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0

A3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

A4 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

A5 1 1 4 2 4 3 1 4 0 10 0 1 1 0 4 2 3 1 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 0 1

Total 1 1 5 2 4 9 1 8 3 10 2 1 1 1 5 2 5 5 4 4 1 2 1 3 2 9 3 7 3 2 1 2

PAM PIM POE POK POP PRT PUM PUU RAH REE RTR SAT SAU SIM SOS TAA TET TOA VAL PAM

In range 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Indefinite 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

A2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

A3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

A4 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 0

A5 0 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 0 6 1 0 1 0

Total 3 4 8 1 2 4 1 1 3 4 4 2 5 2 1 7 4 2 1 3

169

Figure. Objects of cultural heritage with a representation less than 1% by condition


48

ANNEX 3. DIVISION OF OBJECTS OF CULTURAL HERITAGE BY

MUNICIPALITIES

Table. Objects of cultural heritage by municipalities

Municipality Objects Shoreline (km) Object/km

Aseri 17 16 1,063

Emmaste 25 50 0,500

Harku 57 23 2,478

Jõelähtme 55 49 1,122

Keila 34 28 1,214

Kihelkonna 80 84 0,952

Kohtla 18 16 1,125

Kuusalu 186 103 1,806

Kõrgessaare 68 130 0,523

Lüganuse 23 12 1,917

Lümanda 51 100 0,510

Mustjala 19 62 0,306

Noarootsi 78 96 0,813

Nõva 11 12 0,917

Oru 1 12 0,083

Padise 31 50 0,620

Paldiski linn 47 22 2,136

Pühalepa 37 35 1,057

Ridala 14 30 0,467

Salme 9 69 0,130

Toila 12 16 0,750

Torgu 79 66 1,197

Vaivara 26 11 2,364

Vihula 149 95 1,568

Viimsi 47 39 1,205

Viru- Nigula 38 31 1,226

Vormsi 56 138 0,406

TOTAL 1268 1396

AVERAGE 46,96 1,05


49

ANNEX 4. OBJECTS OF CULTURAL HERITAGE PROTECTED/KNOWN BEFORE

Table. Objects of cultural heritage subject to national heritage protection (National Register of Cultural

Monuments)

No. Registry code Name of the object Code

No. of the monument

1 S_9_2

Artillery position 4 of WWI Sääre coastal defence battery No.43 MMS 28985

2 S_9_3

Artillery position 3 of WWI Sääre coastal defence battery No.43 MMS 28984

3 S_13_9 Jämaja cemetery HAU 4173

4 S_46_7

A cannon base in WWI Ninase coastal defence battery No. 46 MMS 28966

5 HI_34_19 A CHAPEL YARD – Sõru chapel yard cemetery KBM 22272

6 HI_34_16 A COASTAL WELL KAE 22274

7 HI_34_11 A COASTAL WELL KAE 22273

8 HI_34_2 A MILITARY OBJECT. A base of WWII battery stone-crusher OKU 23373

9 HI_34_1

A MILITARY OBJECT. A WWII battery cannon yard with a shelter OKU 23361

10 HI_21_9

A MILITARY OBJECT. A WWII battery fire-control tower commando OKU 23399

11 HI_21_8 A MILITARY OBJECT. WWII battery ammunition shelter 1 OKU 23396

12 HI_21_7 A MILITARY OBJECT. A WWII battery concrete reservoir OKU 23408

13 HI_21_6

A MILITARY OBJECT. A WWII BATTERY COMMANDO-CENTRE/POWER-STATION OKU 23393

14 HI_21_5 A MILITARY OBJECT. WWII FIRE-CONTROL TOWER No. 1 OKU 23392

15 HI_21_3

A MILITARY OBJECT. WWII BATTERY CANNON YARD WITH A SHELTER 4 OKU 23391

16 HI_21_4

A MILITARY OBJECT. WWII BATTERY CANNON YARD WITH A SHELTER 3 OKU 23390

17 HI_8_6 A MILITARY OBJECT. A WWII battery commando-centre OKU 23507

18 HI_8_7 A MILITARY OBJECT. A FIRE-CONTROL TOWER OKU 23506

19

HI_8_2

A MILITARY OBJECT. WWI COASTAL BATTERY No. 39 of the south wing of the preliminary position of Peter the Great's Naval Fortress and one of the four cannon bases, CANNON BASE No. 1 MMS 23487

20

HI_8_8

TAHKUNA LIGHTHOUSE. An architectural monument with the accompanying complex of buildings – the lighthouse, a guard’s house, a fuel storage, a machinery facility and a sauna. Built in 1873. MEM 23481-23486

21 HI_2_6

A MILITARY OBJECT. A WWII cannon base of Hiiesaare battery OKU 23593


50

22 LA_21_2 A monument of Alexander III of Russia MAL 27164

23 LA_10_4 The lower day mark of Telise MEM 27240

24 LA_10_5 The upper day mark of Telise MEM 27239

25 HP_1_3 The main building of Paldiski railway station RTR 21522

26 HP_2_3 St. George Orthodox Church of Paldiski KUL 2759

27 HP_2_4 Nikolai Church of Paldiski KUL 2758

28 HP_2_2 A harbour storehouse in Paldiski SAD 21523

29 HP_3_6 A wooden house of Pakri lighthouse of 1853 TAH 9498

30 HP_3_7 A cellar at Pakri lighthouse of 19th C. KEL 9499

31 HP_3_4 Pakri lighthouse of 1889. MEM 9496

32 HP_3_5 A technical building of Pakri lighthouse of 1950 OKU 9497

33 H_13_10 Nabesaar the refuge KUL 17893

34 H_15_4 Keila -Joa holilday house No. 3 TAH 27067

35 H_15_5 Keila -Joa holiday house No. 5 TAH 27069

36 H_15_6 Keila -Joa holiday house No. 6 (Savisaare House) TAH 27070

37 H_17_7

A searchlight shelter and position of Peter the Great's Naval Fortress MIL 8864

38 H_17_9

Coastal defence battery No. 2 of Peter the Great's Naval Fortress MIL 8868

39 H_18_8 Vare, a searchlight building from the Soviet period OKU 8867

40 H_18_11

Suurupi coastal defence battery and commando’s observation spot OKU 8862

41 H_18_14 Concrete defence cellars MIL 8866

42 H_19_4 A wooden house of the lighthouse of 1911 TAH 9467

43 H_19_5 A technical building of the lighthouse MEM 9468

44 H_19_2 Suurupi lower wooden lighthouse MEM 9465

45 H_19_3 A fuel storage of Suurupi lower wooden lighthouse MEM 9466

46 H_19_16

A searchlight shelter of Peter the Great's Naval Fortress in Muraste MIL 8871

47 H_21_1 The ruins of Miiduranna star-shaped stronghold MIL 8896

48 H_22_2 Kingi farm complex – Viimsi Open Air Museum TAK 27440-27443

49 H_26_2 Randvere churchyard AED 14428

50 H_39_2

The ruins of a hypothetical coastal knights’ cordon building of 18th-19th CC. MIL 27052

51 H_45_2 The location of the former cemetery and chapel of Juminda KAV 14410

52 H_45_10 The building of the former lifeboat station HAO 21521

53 H_45_13 A cult stone KIV 18573

54 H_45_12 Koljuvare cromlech MUK 18572

55 LV_4_26 The main building of Käsmu Maritime Museum MIL 16068

56 LV_4_26

A lighthouse in Käsmu Maritime Museum. Käsmu lighthouse. MEM 16067

57 LV_22_86 A summer residence of Sagadi Manor MOA 15877

58 LV_16_1 The ruins of Toolse stronghold LIN 15951

59 LV_14_5 Kunda lighthouse MEM 15700

60 IV_12_1 A cromlech MUK 9153


51

Table. Previously surveyed objects of cultural heritage (EELIS)

No. Registry code Name of the object Code RMK code

1 VO_10_3 Tuuliku stones TUV 907:TUV:001

2 LA_21_2 A monument of Alexander III of Russia MAL 674:KIV:003

3 LA_11_2 A harbour place of Viiginõmme VLG 520:VLG:008

4 LA_10_2 A border-guard observation spot OKU 520:OKU:008

5 LA_10_6 A border-guard observation tower in Telise OKU 520:OKU:010

6 LA_10_7 A border-guard observation spot in Telise OKU 520:OKU:009

7 LA_8_2 A supposed filling station of Hara border-guard cordon OKU 520:OKU:006

8 LA_8_3 A stead of Ranna farm TAK 520:AST:012

9 LA_8_7 Kaara farm TAK 520:AST:023

10 LA_7_10 A harbour place in Riguldi VLG 520:VLG:011

11 LA_7_6 The place of Riguldi lifeboat station PRT 520:PRT:004

12 LA_7_3 A border-guard technical servicing point in Pöia OKU 520:OKU:046

13 LA_5_3 A border-guard observation spot OKU 520:OKU:011

14 LA_5_6 A concrete cannon base MIL 520:MIL:002

15 LA_5_5 Artillery positions/concrete cannon bases MIL 520:MIL:003

16 LA_5_7 A commando point MIL 520:MIL:005

17 LA_5_8 An artillery position in Põõsaspea MIL 520:MIL:006

18 LA_5_9 A gobble-stone road in Dirham MKT 520:MKT:001

19 LA_5_10 A place of a border-guard observation tower OKU 520:OKU:012

20 LA_5_15 Spitham tower OKU 520:OKU:047

21 LA_4_2 A memorial stone of Mr Kozlov MAL 520:KIV:002

22 LA_4_3 A border-guard cabin OKU 520:OKU:003

23 LA_3_2 The Parunisild bridge VLG 531:VLG:001

24 LA_3_1 A border-guard cabin on Liivane Shore OKU 531:OKU:001

25 LA_3_3 Vohi Wreck VLG 531:VLG:003

26 LA_3_4 A running trench OKU 531:OKU:002

27 LA_1_1 A concrete shelter on Nõva Shore OKU 531:OKU:004

28 H_1_1 A tar kiln in Keibu village TOA 562:TOA:001

29 H_2_10 Alliklepa stone wind-mill with its new buildings TUV 562:TUV:010

30 H_3_5 The building complex of Kolviku guard station OKU 562:OKU:003

31 H_3_6 Rigose border-guard station MMS 562:OKU:005

32 H_7_6 WWII running trenches OKU 562:MMS:002

33 H_10_1 The place of the former Mereääre farmhouse TAK 295:TAK:011

34 HP_1_1 An observation tower/building OKU 295:OKU:004

35 HP_3_1

Shooting structures and shelters on the bluff of

Pakri MIL 580:MIL:001

36 HP_3_1 Leetse fishing shore JKM 580:VLG:001

37 HP_4_1 A stone bridge in Leetse KIS 580:KIS:002

38 H_11_5 The place of the former Lahepera farm TAK 295:TAK:012

39 H_14_6 Cape Surnumäe nukk KON 295:KON:003


52

40 H_15_7 Keila-Joa smallboat harbour SAD 295:VLG:001

41 H_15_9

A 3-storey border-guard observation building in

Keila-Joa OKU 295:OKU:005

42 H_17_5 Kivistiku farmstead TAK 198:TAK:001

43 H_17_14

A building in the registered property

Merekindlus VI MIL 198:TAK:010

44 H_18_1 Suurupi fog alarm MEM 198:MEM:001

45 H_18_6

A building in the registered property

Merekindlus VII MIL 198:TAK:013

46 H_18_7 A gobble-stone road in merekindlus VII MKT 198:MKT:001

47 H_18_14 Concrete defence cellars MIL 198:MMS:002

48 H_18_15 Suurupi guard-station – a former holiday centre OKU 198:MMS:001

49 H_19_6 Roisu farmstead TAK 198:TAK:053

50 H_19_22

A former limestone quarry, a transportation

road and a harbour PAM 198:PAM:002

51 H_19_21 Place of a mill TUV 198:TUV:003

52 H_20_1 Tilgu fishing harbour SAD 198:JKM:001

53 H_20_8 Lollidemaa area UUS 198:KON:002

54 H_21_3 Ruins of Haabneeme Manor MOA 890:MOA:002

55 H_21_6 2nd schoolhouse of Viimsi KOO 890:KOO:002

56 H_21_10 Place of Pringi Summer Manor MOK 890:MOA:003

57 H_21_9 A Soviet border-guard building OKU 890:OKU:004

58 H_22_1 1st schoolhouse of Viimsi KOO 890:KOO:003

59 H_22_11 Reinu farmhouse store KEL 890:POE:002

60 H_23_4 A former Soviet Army building OKU 890:OKU:008

61 H_23_5 Rohuneeme seamark MEM 890:MEM:001

62 H_23_7

Kelvingu residential area, a former firing range of

the Soviet Army OKU 890:OKU:006

63 H_24_1 A seamark MEM 890:MEM:002

64 H_24_2

A boundary stone of Maardu and Viimsi Manors/

Leppneeme drainage canal MOK 890:PIM:001; 890:KKR:001

65 H_24_4 Kopli farmhouse store POE 890:POE:003

66 H_24_10 Leppneeme harbour’s net shed PKU 890:JKM:002

67 H_24_5 A smokehouse of Kirov Fishing Kolkhoz JKM 890:PNL:006

68 H_24_13 Miku farmhouse store POE 890:POE:004

69 H_24_16 A demagnetization centre? of the Soviet Army OKU 890:OKU:011

70 H_25_8 A Soviet border-guard observation building OKU 890:OKU:013

71 H_28_2

The Soviet border-guard observation tower on

Cape Loo-Otsa OKU 245:OKU:001

72 H_28_5 Place of the old border-guard station MIL 245:MIL:001

73 H_28_3 The two-wharf Soviet border-guard harbour OKU 245:VLG:001

74 H_29_3 An old landing place VLG 245:VLG:002

75 H_29_11 A harbour on Cape Koljuotsa JKM 245:VLG:003


53

76 H_29_12

A Soviet border-guard observation point at

Koljuotsa OKU 245:OKU:002

77 H_29_13 The place name of Koljuots KON 245:KON:001

78 H_32_8 The dismounted Neeme lighthouse MEM 245:OKU:007

79 H_32_5 The lighthouse of Uitru peninsula MEM 245:MEM:003

80 H_32_3

A Soviet border-guard building complex at the

top of Uitru peninsula OKU 245:OKU:008

81 H_32_6 Foxholes on Uitru peninsula OKU 245:OKU:007

82 H_32_12

The former Neeme border-guard station and the

present nursery OKU 245:OKU:011

83 H_35_1

A Soviet border-guard observation building at

the top of Kaberneeme peninsula OKU 245:OKU:009

84 H_35_2 A Soviet border-guard station in Kaberneeme OKU 245:OKU:010

85 H_36_11 Valkla-Jõesuu (MUA) MUA 353:MUA:001

86 H_40_2 Oru farmstead TAK 353:TAK:017

87 H_41_1 The water well of Merila Farm KAE 353:KAE:001

88 H_45_5 WWII foxholes MMS 353:MMS:002

89 H_45_9

The ruins of a chapel at the top of Juminda

peninsula KAV 353:KAV:001

90 H_47_3 Maalmanni farmstead TAK 353:TAK:014

91 H_48_5 Hara border-guard station OKU 353:MMS:001

92 H_49_2 Haaginina ship-building place LEK 353:LEK:001

93 H_51_7 Odakivimägi Hill KON 353:KON:012

94 H_52_1 Pähklineeme pine grove SIM 353:SIM:001

95 H_54_13 Turbuneeme clay pools KAR 353:SAT:002

96 LV_1_10 Eru castle hill LIN 887:LIN:001

97 LV_7_43 A rocket base OKU 887:OKU:008

98 LV_7_45 Tantsukivi stone KIV 887:KIV:009

99 LV_7_49 Boat piers VLG 887:VLG:007

100 LV_7_50

A guard station of the period of the Russian

Empire MIL 887:MIL:001

101 LV_8_62 A harbour SAD 887:VLG:005

102 LV_8_64 A trench beginning-end 2 MMS 887:OKU:005

103 LV_8_65 Coastal defence structures 4 MMS 887:OKU:004

104 LV_8_68 A stone fence beginning-end 2 AED 887:AED:003

105 LV_8_72 A rocket base OKU 887:OKU:001

106 LV_8_75 Restored landing places VLG 887:VLG:001

107 LV_8_75 A granary/boat shed of Sagadi Manor MTH 887:MOA:001

108 LV_8_75 Supposed landing places VLG 887:VLG:002

109 LV_8_75 A radar base OKU 887:OKU:002

110 LV_8_75 A border-guard cabin OKU 887:OKU:003

111 LV_8_72 A stone fence beginning-end 2 AED 887:AED:002

112 LV_9_81 A fire station PRT 887:PRT:001


54

113 LV_22_85 A landing place VLG 887:VLG:006

114 LV_22_86 A zone of trenches, beginning 2 OKU 887:MIL:002

115 LV_22_86 Merinõmme community centre RAH 887:RAH:001

116 LV_22_86 Cellar of Merinõmme community centre RAH 887:KEL:001

117 LV_18_6 Hollandi Hill KON 887:KON:034

118 LV_18_2 Raja forest-guard station MTS 887:VKK:013

119 LV_17_5 Rutja border-guard tower OKU 887:OKU:011

120 LV_16_6 Karepa brick factory SAT 887:SAT:005

121 LV_16_7 A clay hole of the brick factory SAT 887:KAR:002

122 LV_15_1 The place of Toolse boat harbour SAD 887:VLG:013

123 LV_11_5 Mahu forest-guard stead MTS 902:VKK:005

124 LV_10_3 Mahu harbour SAD 902:VLG:001

125 LV_10_2 Boat/net sheds PKU 902:PKU:001

126 LV_10_6 A border-defence structure of the Soviet period OKU 902:MIL:004

127 LV_10_7 Place of a store in Mahu POE 902:POE:001

128 IV_2_2 A geodetic mark GDM 154:GDM:001

129 IV_2_4 The summer house of Koogu landlord TAH 154:MOK:002

130 IV_2_5 The cellar of Ranna Farm KEL 154:KEL:001

131 IV_3_2 Rannu settlement farm AST 154:AST:003

132 IV_3_8 The boiler house of Aseri ceramics factory PNL 154:PNL:012

133 IV_3_6 The fuel storage of Aseri ceramics factory PNL 154:PNL:013

134 IV_5_5 Purtse border-guard station OKU 437:EWO:001

135 IV_5_3 The location of Purtse seamark MEM 437:MEM:001

136 IV_5_10 The place of a coastal inn KOR 437:KOR:002

137 IV_5_6 The place of the summer house of Püssi Count TAH 437:MOK:001

138 IV_7_2 Aa Shore summer resort TAH 437:PNL:004

139 IV_8_9 A farmstead TAK 320:TAK:003

140 IV_8_10 A sauna/summer house of Võidu tee kolkhoz PNL 320:PNL:001

141 IV_8_7 Saka stairs ??? 320:HAO:003

142 IV_8_13 Place of Saka Inn KOR 320:KOR:002

143 IV_8_12 Saka limestone quarry PAM 320:PAM:003

144 IV_8_11 Saka stone bridge KIS 320:KIS:002

145 IV_10_5 A cast iron cross MEM 320:MEM:001

146 IV_10_2 The limestone quarry of Ontika Manor PAM 320:PAM:001

147 IV_10_3 Ontika wooden stairs HAO 320:HAO:001

148 IV_10_4 Valaste military coastal defence buildings (2) MMS 320:MMS:001

149 IV_10_1 Valaste waterfall MPO 320:MPO:003

150 IV_16_1 Kannuka fishing shore JKM 851:JKM:001

151 IV_16_3 A border-guard observation spot in Kannuka OKU 851:OKU:002

152 IV_16_4 Stones with inscriptions KIV 851:KIV:004

153 IV_16_5 Kannuka sacred-grove stone KIV 851:KIV:001

154 IV_16_11 Männiku houses TAH 851:TAH:001

155 IV_16_7 Kannuka holiday resort KON 851:KON:001


55

156 IV_16_10 Perjatsi Shore KUV 851:KUV:002

157 IV_1_16 A choir stand of the local temperance society KUV 851:KUV:001

158 IV_17_3 The brick factory’s sandpit KAR 851:KAR:005

159 IV_17_2 The location of a lake KON 851:KON:010

160 IV_18_2 Utria clay bank KON 851:KON:020

161 IV_18_7 Anela slope KON 851:KON:011

162 IV_18_9 A protection plantation for shore dunes EOM 851:EOM:001

163 IV_18_11 Laagna- Anela shore road MNT 851:KAT:005

164 IV_18_10 A coastal defence battery in Meriküla MMS 851:MMS:011

165 IV_18_12 Vene dessandikivi stone MAL 851:ASM:002


56

Table. Previously surveyed objects of cultural heritage

by typology

Type Number Type Number

??? 1 MNT 1

AED 2 MOA 1

AST 1 MOK 2

EOM 1 MPO 1

GDM 1 MTH 1

HAO 1 MTS 2

JKM 4 MUA 1

KAE 1 OKU 40

KAR 2 PAM 3

KAV 1 PKU 2

KEL 2 PNL 3

KIS 2 POE 3

KIV 3 PRT 2

KON 8 RAH 2

KOO 2 SAD 5

KOR 2 SAT 2

KUV 2 SIM 1

LEK 1 TAH 4

LIN 1 TAK 9

MAL 3 TOA 1

MEM 7 TUV 3

MIL 10 UUS 1

MKT 2 VLG 9

MMS 6 Total 173


57

Figure. Objects of cultural heritage previously surveyed or known (by EELIS) and found within Baltic Green Belt project by object types


58

Table. Objects of cultural heritage under national nature conservation (according to EELIS)

No. Registry code Name of the object Code

No. of object of national nature conversation

1 LA_17_1 Truumani stones KIV KLO4000911

2 LA_13_1 Sturensen/Lambakivi stone KIV KLO4001262

3 H_36_1 Augu Suurkivi stone in Haapse village KIV KLO4000928

4 H_39_1 Sammuli oak trees, 3 items. (national nature conservation) HII KLO4000629

5 H_53_5 Mustkivi stone KIV KLO4000465

6 H_53_6 Kuhjakivi stone KIV KLO4000511

7 H_53_12 Sääre oak-tree PUU KLO4000300

8 H_53_13 Tiiru stone/ Painuva Suurkivi stone KIV KLO4000923

9 H_54_1 Turbuneeme stones KIV KLO4000925

10 H_54_15 Jaani-Tooma Suurkivi stone KIV KLO4000457

11 LV_3_22 Vana-Jüri stones KIV KLO4000985

12 LV_4_28 Saadumetsa Suurkivi stone KIV KLO4000484


59

ANNEX 5. OBJECTS LOCATED IN PROTECTED AREAS

Table. Objects of cultural heritage located in protected areas by object type (more than 5 objects represented in the object type)

Object type Number of objects

OKU 136

KIV 58

TAK 32

MMS 24

PKU 19

??? 17

AST 15

VLG 15

JKM 14

KON 14

MEM 12

PNL 12

AED 10

KAT 10

TAH 10

MIL 9

SAD 9

LAU 8

MAL 7

MOA 7

MPO 7

KEL 6

TUV 5

TOTAL 456

AVERAGE 19,826


60

ANNEX 6. CURRENT HUMAN PRESSURE

Table. Current human pressure by municipalities

Municipality Objects of human pressure Shoreline (km) Object/km

Aseri 1 16 0,062

Emmaste 8 50 0,159

Harku 17 23 0,735

Jõelähtme 14 49 0,286

Keila 14 28 0,493

Kihelkonna 20 84 0,239

Kohtla 3 16 0,183

Kuusalu 17 103 0,165

Kõrgessaare 35 130 0,269

Lüganuse 1 12 0,083

Lümanda 14 100 0,140

Mustjala 5 62 0,081

Noarootsi 14 96 0,145

Nõva 0 12 0,000

Oru 1 12 0,083

Padise 12 50 0,238

Paldiski city 2 22 0,090

Pühalepa 18 35 0,518

Ridala 0 30 0,000

Salme 6 69 0,087

Toila 1 16 0,064

Torgu 11 66 0,167

Vaivara 2 11 0,189

Vihula 8 95 0,084

Viimsi 10 39 0,253

Viru- Nigula 14 31 0,454

Vormsi 13 138 0,094

TOTAL 261 1396 0,187

AVERAGE 10 0,199


61

Figure. Current human pressure in protected areas

Table. Current human pressure in protected areas

Protected area

Number of objects EH NEW MH

Lahemaa NP 22 10 9 3

Vilsandi NP 10 7 1 2

Ontika LCA 3 1 2 0

Tareste NCA 3 0 3 0

Pakri LCA 2 1 1 0

Paope NCA 2 0 2 0

Udria LCA 2 1 1 0

Kõpu NCA 1 1 0 0

Letipea LCA 1 1 0 0

Panga LCA 1 1 0 0

Päite LCA 1 0 0 1

Silma NCA 1 0 1 0

Suurupi NCA 1 0 0 1

Teesu NCA 1 1 0 0

Vormsi LCA 1 0 1 0

TOTAL 52 24 21 7

AVERAGE 3,47 1,6 1,4 0,47 NP – national park, LCA – landscape conservation area, NCA – nature conservation area


62

ANNEX 7. SURVEYED OBJECTS BY MUNICIPALITIES

1. Aseri municipality

2. Emmaste municipality

3. Harku municipality

4. Jõelähtme municipality

5. Keila municipality

6. Kihelkonna municipality

7. Kohtla municipality

8. Kuusalu municipality

9. Kõrgessaare municipality

10. Lüganuse municipality

11. Lümanda municipality

12. Mustjala municipality

13. Noarootsi municipality

14. Nõva municipality

15. Oru municipality

16. Padise municipality

17. Paldiski linn

18. Pühalepa municipality

19. Ridala municipality

20. Salme municipality

21. Toila municipality

22. Torgu municipality

23. Vaivara municipality

24. Vihula municipality

25. Viimsi municipality

26. Viru- Nigula municipality

27. Vormsi municipality

Aseri vald1:100 000

Emmaste vald1:200 000

Harku vald1:100 000

Jõelähtme vald1:200 000

Keila vald1:200 000

Kihelkonna vald1:200 000

Kohtla vald1:100 000

Kuusalu vald1:200 000

Kõrgessaare vald1:300 000

Lüganuse vald1:100 000

Lümanda vald1:200 000

Mustjala vald1:200 000

Noarootsi vald1:200 000

Nõva vald1:100 000

Oru vald1:100 000

Padise vald1:200 000

Paldiski linn1:100 000

Pühalepa vald1:200 000

Ridala vald1:200 000

Salme vald1:200 000

Toila vald1:200 000

Torgu vald1:200 000

Vaivara vald1:200 000

Vihula vald1:250 000

Viimsi vald1:100 000

Viru-Nigula vald1:200 000

Vormsi vald1:100 000

inventory of the shore areas in the estonian green belt. a · pdf file ·...

Documents