0%
of sites sit in a basin under high water stress or water crisis.
What it meansCooling choices become a territorial question, not only a technical one.
WRI Aqueduct 4.0 · n = 36 · 1 site with no published value — excluded and counted apart Finland
Fleet figures
What public data says about data centers, aggregated site by site. Every figure is dated, sourced and recomputable.
The figure of this edition — on the selected territory
0%
of sites sit in a basin under high water stress or water crisis.
The fleet is here. The water is already under stress.
You are looking at
Finland
ⓘ This is not a ranking. It is the photograph of a territory: what it already hosts, what it can still absorb, and what public files actually allow to know.
1. Can you still build here?
The fleet was built on land already taken — but many border protected natural areas.
92%
of the fleet is built on already-artificialized soil — not on farmland or natural land.
What it meansThe fleet grows mostly on already-transformed land — not every new project follows that logic.
Corine Land Cover (EEA) · n = 37 Finland
All the figures (2 more)
16%
of sites border a protected natural area, within one kilometre.
Protected areas — EEA CDDA / Natura 2000 · n = 37 Finland
0%
of sites neighbour a high-hazard industrial site, within 2 km.
National registers of high-hazard industrial sites · n = 22 Finland
2. What do we really know about the projects?
Operators disclose their capacity.
0%
of sites disclose their electrical capacity — the basic figure of any public debate.
What it meansThe basic figure of any public debate is usually available.
Operators' public disclosures · n = 37 Finland
3. Where is the fleet heading?
The tracked fleet is already running.
100%
of the tracked fleet is already operating — we measure what exists, not only what is promised.
What it meansWe measure what exists first, not only what is promised.
ScoreMyDataCenter corpus — project status · n = 37 Finland
1
projects under citizen opposition or moratorium — recorded and sourced, never graded on that basis.
What it meansSourced facts, never a grade — context.
Watch layer — sourced facts, never a grade · n = 1 Finland
4. What weighs most here?
The territory's constraints, ranked by the share of sites concerned — a descriptive ranking, never a grade.
1
Protected areas
16%
of sites within 1 km of a protected natural area.
2
Water
0%
of sites in high water-stress areas.
3
High-hazard sites
0%
of sites within 2 km of a high-hazard industrial site.
recomputed per perimeter: share of sites concerned by each constraint
5. Three projects that tell this territory
A mechanical, published selection — the most common profile, the most constrained, the best documented. Real situations behind the aggregates.
Equinix Helsinki HE3 — Helsinki (18)
Site gradeB
- Operational · capacity not disclosed
- On already-artificialized soil
criterion: the territory's modal profile (status, grid, soil, most frequent grade)
View the fiche →Datavault Kanavuori inc. — Jyväskylä (08)
Site gradeB
- 1 cumulated territorial constraint
- Within 1 km of a protected area
criterion: highest cumulated territorial frictions in the perimeter
View the fiche →atNorth FIN03 — Espoo (18)
Site gradeB
- Documentary confidence: low — 29%
- Operational
criterion: highest documentary-confidence score
View the fiche →6. How to read these figures?
No figure on this page is written by hand.
37sites analysed one by one21%average coverage — the gap is displayed100%recomputable (open data, grid and engine)1same method for every territory100%of figures linked to their sources
Figures change when facts change — never to fit the story.
See the full method →ScoreMyDataCenter is an independent observatory. No operator funding. No proprietary data. No complacency.