315
1 INTRODUCTION
AccordingtotheEU TreatyofFunctioningislandsare
considered as one of the least favoured regions in
termsofeconomic,socialandterritorialcohesion.[1]
In order to increase cohesion and reduce disparity
accessibility is key for islands sustainability and
thereforeinEstoniaitisresponsibility
ofthestateor
municipality by the law. Accessibility must be
sufficient to ensure that the islandʹs inhabitants can
carry out their daily activities and have access to
servicesandsupplies.
Islands are not similar in terms of distance from
either mainland or major city or populated area,
accessibility by
transport (boat, plane, car). It is
thereforenecessarytolookatthetransportconnection
foreachislandseparately.Whenselectingthesuitable
transport connection, one must also take the limited
and optimal use of public resources into account.
Decision makers must find a compromise between
conflicting interests. On the one
hand, good and
adequateconnectivity,andontheotherhand,public
resource constraints make it difficult to make
decisionsthatsatisfyallparties.
The research question of this study is to analyse
the maritime connections to seven Estonian small
islands – Ruhnu, Kihnu, Manilaid, Abruka, Vormsi,
Prangli anf Piirissaar. The managerial
result of the
study suggestion of the service levels of the small
island connections. For this work, interviews were
conducted with different actors involved in the
community,statisticalmaterialfrom2017to2020was
Small Island Public Transport Service Levels:
Operational Model for Estonia
T.Hunt
1
,U.Tapaninen
1
,R.Palu
2
&A.Laasma
1
1
TallinnUniversityofTechnology,Tallinn,Estonia
2
LUTUniversity,Kouvola,Finland
ABSTRACT: The maritime connections are vital to success of islands. Estonia has 19 permanently habited
islandswithatleastfiveinhabitants.16ofthoseareconsideredassmallislandswithanareabelow100km2.
Their seaconnections aresecured(i.e.organized,financed)bythegovernment
or municipality. Thesesmall
islandsareverydiverse‐intermsofpopulation,economicactivity,infrastructurecapacityandneeds,etc.In
this study, we have analyzed ten connections to seven Estonian small islands based on seven criteria. The
criteriaareasfollows:passengerandvehiclevolumes,frequency,reliability,speedandtime,vessel
suitability,
harboursandtransportaccesstotheharboursfromthelandside.Thereafter,wehaveclassifiedtheconnections
toislandstofourlevels:(i)daily,(ii)scheduled,(iii)invitation‐onlyand(iv)tourism.Finally,weraisedseveral
actionstoimprovetheconnectionsbasedonthedefinedservicelevels.Thisarticleaddresses
theproblemof
smallislandcommunities,thecriteriathatinfluenceservice,proposesservicelevelsandscenariosandthetools
fordecision‐makerstobetterorganisetheconnectionstoislandcommunitiesandtoservelocalresidentsand
business as well as tourism. Keywords: small islands, connectivity, sustainability, connection service levels,
adequateresources.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 18
Number 2
June 2024
DOI:10.12716/1001.18.02.0
7
316
analysed, and how the same problem has been
addressedinotherresearcharticleswasexamined.
2 LITERATUREREVIEW
Transportandlogisticsstudiesfocusmainlyonliner
shipping and freight logistics. Studies of ferry
transportconnectionsandaccessibilityarescarcebut
still exist. In most of those approaches, many
measurementmethods
havebeendevelopedforland
transportandurbanareas,whichmaynotbedirectly
applicable to measuring transport options in the
archipelagowhentheferry‐basedtransportsystemis,
inmanyrespects,aspecificcase.[2].Previousstudies
have looked, for example, at traffic management
between the Canary Islands [3]
ferry services in
ScotlandwithBaird[4]andLaird[5],andGreekferry
connections in Spilan [6]. The Norwegian ferry
connectionshave beenthoroughlystudied byOdeck
and Høyem, dealing with both logistical [7], [8]and
operatorsʹ procurement arrangements [9]. Also,
Norwegian samples of service quality aspects were
researchedbyMathisenet
al.[10].Theorganizationof
transportconnectionsbetweentheislandsofFinland
has been analyzed by Makkonen [2], As well as the
Finnish ministry of agriculture and forestry[11].
Tankoetal.thecomparativeanalysisfocusedonthe
innovativetransportpolicyofurbanareasinSweden
and Australia, namely ferry‐oriented development
(FOD)[12].
The first concept of Levels‐of‐Services (LOS) in
ferry systems was already developed more than 30
yearsagointheUSAbyKhisty[13].Jorgensenetal.
proposedamodelfordesigningcapacityandservice
levels based on data from research on Norwegian
ferryusers’habits.[14].
Their model
illustrates how varied factors like
route lengths and size of ferries affect the optimal
valueofoneofthemostimportantserviceelements,
namely frequency. It also shows the importance of
having reliable forecastsfor these variables over the
contract period. The larger uncertainty in these
variables, the more reasonable
it would be for
transportation administrations to design flexible
tenders that can be changed during the contract
period.
AccordingtoSpilanisetal.,theislands,especially
thesmallerones,arecharacterizedbyadisruptionof
space and are considered one of the least accessible
areas.Thisshiftinemphasiswillconsider
additional
aspectsofaccessibility,whichincludetheavailability
of access services necessary to meet the needs of
islanders and the needs of the various destinations
wheretheymaybeavailable,andthe timethatmay
havetobespentonaccessingtheseservicestoreach
those destinations. Islanders face‐off,
especially for
smallerislands,whereaccesstoselectedservicescan
requireuptofourdestinations,withvirtualdistances
4to6timeslongerthanʺactualdistances.ʺWhatisthe
ʺactualʺ distance between the two points in time?
Geographicaldistancemeasureswhentwoplacesare
locatedʺfarʺ orʺclose,ʺ; but
this is not enough to
assessthecomplexityofaccess.Geographicaldistance
only partially determines the accessibility of small
islands. The choice of transport is limited to public
transportation at fixed frequencies, where the
transport time is much higher (and the cost). In
addition, different services are in other destinations.
Combined
withtheinabilitytoreturnovernightfrom
manyofthesedestinations,itcantakeseveraldaysto
returnfromthetrip.Therefore,thegeographyofthe
inhabitants of these small islands seems to be very
different from theʺusualʺ map, according to these
factors,spacecontracts,orsubtractions.[6]
Accessibility
is the main output of a transport
system. It determines the locationaladvantage of an
arearelativetoothers.[15]Accessibilityforislanders
has both a “real” and “psychological” or perceived
dimension:the first is related to infrastructure or
services (available transportation modes and the
quality of each craft/vessel), the frequency
of
connections,thedestination(themainland,oranother
island)aboutthereasonfortravel,andofcoursecost.
Thelatterdimensionisrelatedtohowpeopleperceive
and evaluate accessibility. [16] Makkonen et al.
discovered a close connection between island
population distribution patterns and transport
opportunities; as a rule, the
islands with the largest
populationshavethebestferrytransportservices.
3 CURRENTSITUATION
Eurostat defines island for NUTS 3 level island
regions as territories having: minimum surface of 1
km²;aminimumdistancebetweentheislandandthe
mainlandof1km;aresidentpopulationofmorethan
50inhabitants;
nofixedlink(forexample,abridge,a
tunnel, or a dyke) between the island(s) and the
mainland. [17] In Estonia, the island is classified
habited when they have only 5 people living there.
According to the Estonian “Permanently Inhabited
Small Islands Act” there are big islands and small
islands.
BigislandsareSaaremaa,HiiumaaandMuhu
[18].Smallislandsare considered to be islands with
an area below 100 km2 and with a population of at
leastfiveinhabitants.[18]Thelist ofsmallislandsis
establishedbyaregulationoftheGovernmentofthe
Republic of Estonia. Currently there
are 17 small
islandsonthelist[19]:Abrukaisland,Aegnaisland,
Heinlaid, Kesselaid, Kihnu island, Kräsuli island,
Kõinastu islet, Manilaid orManija island, Mohni
island, Naissaar, Piirissaar, Prangli island, Ruhnu
island, Viirelaid, Vilsandi island, Vormsi island and
Väike‐Pakri island. In this research connections to
Ruhnu,Kihnu,Manilaid,Abruka,Vormsi,
Pranglianf
Piirissaarwereanalysed.Thelocationsofislandsare
shownontheFigure1andspecificdetailsareshown
inAppendix1.
317
Figure1.IslandsofEstonia.[20]
InJanuary20221874peoplelivedinsmallislands
[21]. Of those Kihnu, Vormsi, Prangli, Ruhnu and
Piirissaar were most populated, with Kihnu as the
biggest,roughly700inhabitants.
Onseveralislands,thepopulationissignificantly
smaller in winter than in summer. For example, in
Vormsi there are officially 444 inhabitants
but only
200of themare living onislandallyear round[22].
InRuhnutwo‐thirdsofinhabitantsliveonislandonly
during summer. In addition to that, summer is the
main tourist season. Increased number of islanders
and visitors means that there is bigger demand for
productsand
servicesonisland.Allthisresultsina
growing demand for connectivity in summer, which
increasesseveralfold.
There isn’t unified pattern of activities which
describes economies of small islands in Estonia.
Tourism is the only activity which plays significant
roleforallislands.Theimportanceofotheractivities
variesfromisland
toisland.
Historicallythemainsourceofincomewasfishing.
Todayfishingismoreofasecondaryactivity.Forthe
smallislandsimportantsourceofincomecomesfrom
tourism and its related activities – accommodation,
crafting and selling handicrafts and souvenirs,
catering, organising trips/visits, renting means of
transportationetc.In
recentyearsrecreationalboating
has gained popularity and the importance of
providing service for small crafts and their visiting
guestshasincreased.
There isn’t any significant industrial activity on
islands,except in Vormsi. For Vormsiforestry has a
majorimpacttotheisland’seconomy.
From agricultural activities, livestock farming is
the
most important. Land cultivation is carried out
mostly for own consumption or for supporting of
one’sownotheractivity.
Islands that are municipal entities, like Vormsi,
Kihnu and Ruhnu, additional jobs are created by
fulfillingresponsibilitiesofthelocalgovernment.
4 CURRENTTRANSPORTATION
ARRANGEMENT
Main connections to the small inhabited
islands are
arrangedbyseagoingvessels.ForRuhnuthereisalso
connectionbyairfromPärnuwhichistheclosestcity
onmainland.
Maritime connections between small inhabited
islandsandmainlandorbigislandsareconsideredas
public transport and therefore is financed, planned
and managed either by the state or
municipality or
their institutions (e. g Ministry of Economic Affairs
and Communications, Transport Board, Public
TransportCentres).Otherpartiesinvolvedincreating
connectionsareshippingcompanies/operators,ports,
islanders, island‐related businesses, associations like
AssociationofSmallIslands.Operatorswillbefound
through public procurement. Depending on the
connection operating party
either must own the
vessels or vessels are provided by the state/local
municipality. Three transport connections, Abruka,
Piirissaar and Ruhnu, are sailing only summertime
andpre‐andaftersummertimewiththemainvessel
(Table1).
Table1.Overviewofconnectionsandcharacteristicsofmain
servingvessel
________________________________________________
Island Connection Connec‐ Freq. Main
tionvessel
typecharacteristics
________________________________________________
Abruka Abruka‐ Maritime Year‐ L=14,8;B=4,56;
Roomassaareround D=1,445;
(tug‐ice‐GT=32;Pass
breaker 24;Cars1;
when v=13kn
ice)
Kihnu Kihnu‐ Maritime Year‐ L=45;B=12;
Munalaidround D=2,7;GT=924
Pass200;Cars
32;v=12,2kn
Manilaid Manilaid‐ Maritime Year‐
Munalaidround
Piirissaar Piirissaare‐ Maritime Year‐
L=32;B=6;
LaaksaareroundD=1;GT236;
(hovercraftPass50;Cars
–whenice)5;v=10
Prangli Kelnase‐ Maritime Year‐ L=24,7;B=6;
Leppneemeround D=1,9;GT139;
Pass74;Cars
1;v=12kn
Ruhnu Ringsu‐ Maritime 01.05‐ L=23,9;B=8;
Roomassaare31.10 D=1,48;
Ringsu‐GT=169;Pass
Munalaid60;Cars2;
Ringsu‐v=25kn
Pärnu
Pärnu‐ Air 01.10‐
Ruhnu‐30.04
Kuressaare
Vormsi Sviby‐ Maritime Year‐ L=45;B=12;
Rohukülaround D=2,7;GT=924
Pass200;Cars
32;v=12,2kn
________________________________________________
Remarks:L–Length,m;B–Breadth,m;D–Draft,m;Pass–
Passengers;v–speed,knots
Users of the transport services can be divided to
fourgroups[22]:
1. permanentresidents,forwhomafixedconnection
is also vitally important for their daily activities.
They either arrange their transport themselvesor
usetheserviceprovidedbythegovernment.
2. islandresidentswholiveontheislandonly
during
thesummerperiod.
3. tourists.Inthecaseofsmallislands,wecanspeak
of1)daytouristswhodonotnecessarilymakeuse
318
oftheservicesofferedontheisland,buttheymay
leave something behind, e.g. with rubbish; or,2)
tourists staying overnight or longer period. Day
tourists may be on the island in the context of a
cultural,sportingorothersuch event,andinthis
way in which case they also
use the services
providedontheisland.Touristsstayingovernight
ontheislandmakeuse oftheservicesofferedon
theisland,e.g.restaurants,shops,etc.
4. businesses,industry,serviceprovidersforwhoma
transportlinkisvitalfortheirpartoftheirsupply
chain,eitherintermsofsupply
ordistribution.
5 CRITERIAFORMAINLANDCONNECTIONS
Accessibility is a key factor in ensuring the
sustainabilityofsmallislandsasremoteplaces.Thisis
ensured by fixed connections, either by sea or by
planeorevenbycar.ThemainconnectiontoEstoniaʹs
inhabited small islands is by sea. Regular
air
connections are only available on the most remote
island, Ruhnu. Various parties are involved in
ensuringahigh‐qualityfixedlinkatnationalandlocal
government level, operators, associations of island
residents,and,mostimportantly,islandbusinesses.
When interviewing stakeholders, the following
criteria were found as important for connectivity:
speed, time, reliability, frequency, passenger and
vehiclevolumes,vesselsuitability,harbours,landside
accesstoharbours.[22]
Thetimeittakestoserviceconnectiondependson
the distance of a connection ports and speed of the
vessel. All but one connection between small island
and mainland or big island have distance 10
or less
nauticalmiles(Table2)andtriptimedoesn’texceed
one hour. The only exception is Ruhnu. Ruhnu has
threedifferentconnections,twotomainlandandone
toislandSaaremaa(Table2).Asforconnectionswith
otherislandstraveltimeisnotbigissue.ForRuhnuit
is one
of the key aspects in planning connection.
CurrentlytripfromRuhnutoSaaremaatakes2h10
min,tomainland2h50minandtoPärnu3h10min.
Travel time depends heavily on weather conditions,
which means that during rough weather travel time
willbelonger.
Table2.Connectionsofanalysedislands
________________________________________________
Island ConnectionDistance Distanceofthe
(port)fromportporttoclosest
toport, city/populated
nm area,km
________________________________________________
Abruka Abruka‐Roomassaare 5 5,5
(Kuressaare)
Kihnu Kihnu‐Munalaid 10 40(Pärnu)
Manilaid Manilaid‐Munalaid 0,5 40(Pärnu)
Piirissaar Piirissaare‐Laaksaare 4,5 30(Räpina)/
48(Põlva)/
69(Tartu)
Prangli Kelnase‐Leppneeme 10 6(Viimsi)/
16(Tallinn)
Ruhnu Ringsu‐Roomassaare 37 5,5
(Kuressaare)
Ringsu‐Munalaid 43
40(Pärnu)
Ringsu‐Pärnu55 0(Pärnu)
Vormsi Sviby‐Rohuküla 5,4 9(Haapsalu)
________________________________________________
5.1 Passengerandvehicleflows
The island connections are characterised by a high
seasonality in passenger and vehicle/cargo flows.
During the winter season, permanent residents
predominantly use the connection. In the summer
season, the volumes on the routes/connections
increase severalfold Figure 2, with no exceptions.
There are several reasons for
this: the islanders
themselves travel more, the number of permanent
residents on the island increases in the summer
period, which increases the volumes and, lastly, the
tourists who visit the island for one day or stay 2‐3
nights.
Figure2. Number of passengers in Kihnu line, 2017‐2020.
[22]
Thesamepatternappliestotheservicingofvehicle
flows Figure 3, but the fluctuations are slightly
smaller. The main reason for this is that vehicle
movementsaremainlyrelatedtolocalresidents and
smallergroupsoftouristsdonotvisittheislandswith
theirowncars.
Figure3.NumberofvehiclesinKihnuline,2017‐2020.[22]
From the point of view of connection planning,
unevenly distributed demand also means different
numbersofconnectionsperseason.Forsomeislands,
thismaymeanreducingthenumberofdailytripstoa
few trips per day or per week. Due to natural
conditionsandthetypeofvesselsused,there
maynot
be regular maritime connections during the winter
period.
5.2 Vessels
There are two aspects when considering a vessel’s
suitability for the traffic. First, fit and proper vessel
ensures reliability. The vessel can be trusted to be
running according to the schedule. An unsuitable
vessel will lead to congestion
in the system, poor
qualityofserviceandadditionalcosts.Thechoiceof
vesselmusttakeintoaccountthenaturalconditionsof
thearea,theweather,theconditionsintheportsand
319
desirable service speed. The characteristics of the
vessel includethetypeofhull,hull material, engine
power, speed, ice class in the region and the
loading/unloadingcapacityforpassengersandcargo.
The second aspect of suitability of the vessel itself,
vessel’s suitabilityto thepassengerand cargo traffic
needs
andalsopassengercomfortduringthevoyage.
Withlimitedfinancialresources,theownerofthe
vessel must make trade‐offs between these and a
numberofadditionalcharacteristics.Agoodexample
is the longest of the routes considered, the Ruhnu
connection, where the design of the current vessel
gave priority to
higher speed and shorter voyage
duration.Asaresult,forexample,thefreightcapacity
of the route is lower and the catamaran used as a
vessel is more sensitive to weather conditions,
reducingthereliabilityoftheconnection.Atthesame
time,overtime,thedemandforbothpassengersand
freight has increased. The same problemisfacedby
someotherconnectionssuch asPrangliandAbruka.
Over time, the vessel initially suitable in terms of
capacityhasbecomeundersized,causingdisruptions
eveninbasicservices.
Estonianwatersareveryshallow.Depthscloseto
the islands are all less than 5
m which means that
draftsofusablevesselsarelimited.Limiteddepthsset
constraints to vehicle capacity of vessels used.
Majorityvehiclesareeitherislanders’personalcarsor
commercial vehicles. Forvisitors there is no need to
travel to the island by car or bus. For tourists, the
transportis
usuallyorganizedbythehosts.Cyclingis
agoodwaytogetaroundthesmallislandsandthere
is growing demand for vesselstotransport bicycles.
Thereisalsosomeparcelcarryingcapacityneededas
islanders are on board by foot and they bring some
bigger parcels with them. Some of
such passengers
havetransportmeans onbothendoftheconnection
ortheyusesomeothertransportsolutionsonland.
5.3 Harboursandlandsideaccess
Harboursplayanimportantroleintheservicesystem
ofsmallislands.Theadaptabilityofportstoprovide
connections ensures thereliability of the connection.
Port characteristics, such as depths and widths of
access roads, depths in the harbour, dimensions of
ramps, influence ship design. When developing
connections in the long term, port development can
take into account the optimal vessel serving the
connectionandadapttheportaccordingly.
The location of the ports and waterways
to be
used, determine the length of the routes and the
durationofthevoyage.Whenchangingthelocationof
ports,itmustbeborneinmindthatthelocationshave
a long history and that the infrastructure needed to
handle passenger and freight flows has been
developedaroundthem.
Asarule,theintroductionof
a new port at a new location also means the
development of completely new supporting
infrastructure. There are practically no alternative
port locations for the connections under
consideration.
InthecaseoftheislandofPrangli,asouthernport
would shorten the journey significantly, by
about
40%, compared to the current port on the northern
shore. The insufficient depths at the alternative
location,landownership,lackofinfrastructure,areall
factorsthatmakethe useofanew port locationnot
viable. As a further argument, the current harbour
location is better for tourists with
yachts and other
smallcraft,forwhomthecurrentlocationoftheport
ismoresuitableasapartofalongerjourney.
An alternative harbour location on the island of
Vormsi creates an interesting new situation. In
particular,itwouldsignificantlychangethenatureof
thecommunity.Firstly,thealternative
linkwouldbe
significantlyshorterthantheexistingone(1.5nmvs
5.4nm).Duetothespecificitiesofthenewconnection,
thevesselusedwouldnothavetofullycomplywith
theSOLASrulesbutcanfollowdirective2009/45/EC.
The cost of the maritime link would be significantly
reduced.
The shorter sea route would, however,
extend the land connection to the nearest town,
Haapsalu (37.5 km vs 9.3 km). For passengers
travellingtoTallinn, with which many islanders are
more closely connected, the journey is significantly
shorter.Forpublictransportpassengers,whomaybe
moreconnectedtoHaapsalu,thenew
routewouldbe
longer,moretime‐consuming.
Animportantspecificityoftheconnectionsunder
consideration is that the connecting ports on the
mainland and the main islands are located far from
settlements. This means that, in addition to the
functioningofthesealink,thefunctioningoftheland
link,
thepublictransport,isessential.Cooperationis
neededbetweenthecarrierandtheland‐basedpublic
transportoperatortoharmonisethetimetablesofthe
variousmodesofpublictransport.
5.4 ReliabilityandFrequency
Reliabletransportconnectionensuressustainabilityin
small islands in terms of time, transport, other
additional resources. Therefore, reliability
can be
consideredasmainvalueforsuchkindofservices.
In small islands transport connection context we
can define reliability of a transport service as the
ability to meet the agreed timetable and passenger
and freight volumes on time or with minimal
deviations. Reliability is determined not only by
the
technicalconditionsbutalsobythewiderconditions
under which the system operates. Technical
conditions include, for example, the ability of the
vessel to operate according to its technical
specifications, its reliability under normal and
abnormal conditions, the suitability of the vessel for
the route (resistance to natural conditions, their
unexpected changes), the suitability of the physical
characteristics of the port and the vessel, the
suitabilityofreplacementvessels.Theperformanceof
the system can be characterised by the feasibility of
theagreedconditions,theflexibilityofthefunctioning
system,i.e.,theabilitytoreacttochanges.
Reliability means looking
at the tripsthemselves,
thereasonswhytheywerecancelled.Incurrentcase
study the connectionsdidn’t have unifiedpatternin
termsofreasons ofcancelledtrips.Mainreasonsfor
cancelled trips were strong winds, technical failure,
unsuitable water level (too high or too low) and in
2020 emergency situation due
to COVID pandemic.
320
Timelinessisalsoaspectofreliability.Duetolackof
statistical data on this aspect, we can’t say how big
impactdidweather,technicalissuesorotheraspects
affectedtimeliness.For current case, there were two
vessels that served more than one connection. This
meant that in case of cancelled
or not timely trip
followingconnectionwasorcouldhavebeenaffected
bythat.Inordertoimprovereliability,therootcauses
ofmissedtripsneedtobeinvestigated,causeswhich
weredescribedinpreviousparagraph.
Frequency is also an important factor for the
connections studied for the user of
the service, the
highest possible frequency would of course be the
best,butlimitedpublicresourcesmustbetakeninto
accounthere.Therefore,anoptimalfrequencyhasto
be found to match the demand for a given time
period.AsshowninFigure2andFigure3,thereisa
significant
increaseindemandforconnectionsduring
the summer period and therefore the frequency is
higher during these periods. For Kihnu connection
therearethreedistinctperiodsconsideringfrequency
– summertime (from June to August on average 74
round trips per month), pre‐ and after summertime
(April,MayandSeptember94
roundtripspermonth)
andwintertime(fromOctobertoMarch74roundtrips
per month). For Vormsi and Ruhnu there are two
distinct periods. As Kihnu, both connections have
summertime period from June to August. Second
periodforVormsi isfrom SeptembertoMay,butas
Ruhnu line doesn’t operate during winter then
Ruhnu’s connection second period is period is May,
SeptemberandOctober.Frequencyincreasesfroma
fewtripsperweekorperdaytoseveraltripsperday.
6 SERVICELEVELS
To be able to define desired small ferry traffic for
islands, it is necessary first to define criteria for the
traffic. The service level requirements for all service
levelcategoriesare,basedoncriteriaof[23]:
1. Thenecessarymobilityandtransportrequired for
basicsafetyneeds,e.g.transportoffireandrescue
services and police services as well as medical
transport, is organised by a variety of modes of
transport.
2. Connecting vessel traffic, for its part, ensures, in
cooperation with other modes of transport, with
basic safety mobility and transport needs on‐
demandbasis.
3. Postaltransportsrequiredby lawarearrangedon
connectingvesselsinaccordancewiththeatleast
onceaweek.
4. Insevereweatheror
iceconditions,theservicelevel
decreases and passenger transport organised by
alternative modes of transport, such as
hydrocopters,helicoptersorhovercraft.
Traffic peaks are levelled with extra shifts for
basedoncalltraffic.Thiskindofflexibility,toadjust
the connection frequency, is necessary to define in
tender contract.It must
be adjustableonboth ways,
during peak time higher frequency and during low
demandlowerfrequency.
Basedoncriteria therequirementsfor four levels
ofserviceare:
TherequirementsforLevelIare:
Servicelevelenablesschooltransport,commuting,
postal transport and the nearest service point of
thedaily
servicetriptothescheduledtraffic.
Thelevelofserviceallowsthecontactshipstouse
them to business and trade transport not
transportedseparatelyheavycargovessels.
The basic frequency and the size of the vessels
depend on the importance of the route and the
needfortransport.
Thefrequencyshallbeadjusted
accordingtothetrafficvolumeandthecapacityof
the vessel in such a way that, under normal
circumstances, all transport users fit in the shift
theyʹvebeenwaitingfor.
TherequirementsforlevelIIare:
Service level enables regular scheduled traffic
several
business trips per week to the nearest
servicepoint.
The service level enables regular scheduled
services on connecting vessels the necessary
transport of agriculture, horticultultinations,
businessandtrade, whicharenottransportedby
separateheavygoodstransport.
TherequirementsforLevelIIIare:
Theservicelevelenablesatleast
twoweeklytrips
fromtheislandtothenearestservicepointonan
invitation‐onlybasis.
Transport needs of housing and business are
safeguardedinatleastonceaweek.
TherequirementforLevelIVis:servestourism.
6.1 Servicelevelsforthecurrentconnections
Basedontheaforementioned
criteriaandestablished
service levels, we can define service levels of the
specificconnections(Table3).
Table3.Definedservicelevelsoftheconnectionsofsome
smallislandsinEstonia.[22]
________________________________________________
ConnectionIsland Service Future
tobe level service
served today level
________________________________________________
Sviby–Rohuküla–Sviby Vormsi 1 1
Kihnu–Munalaid–Kihnu Kihnu 1 1
Manilaid–Munalaid–Manilaid Manilaid 2 2
Ringsu–Munalaid–Ringsu Ruhnu 2 Differences
Ringsu–Pärnu–RingsuRuhnu 2 for
Ringsu–Roomassaare–Ringsu Ruhnu 2 passengers
andfreight
respectively
1,3
Laaksaare–Piirissaare–Laaksaare Piirissaare 2 2
Kelnase–Leppneeme–Kelnase Prangli 1 1
Roomassaare–Abruka– Abruka 2 2
Roomassaare
________________________________________________
We found that service levels depending on the
routeplan,areinlinewithdemand,butthatservice
stability should be improved so that trips cancelled
due to weather or technical failure can be replaced
withoutaffectingpassengerandfreightmobility.
The distribution of service levels must take
account of the
fact that the routes serving small
islandsarepartly seasonal.Theroute is operatedby
aircraft and hovercraft or support vessels during
321
periods when the operation of a scheduled vessel is
notpossible.
At certain conditions there is need to separate
passenger and cargo flows as they met different
criteria.Thiswillallowabetterqualityofservicetobe
achievedforbothcategoriesofflows.Thisisthecase
for
theislandconnectionsexaminedinthecontextof
thisstudy,i.e.theconnectionstotheislandofRuhnu.
However, different service levels mean different
vessels. For passengers, speed is the main criterion,
while for freight the main criterion is the necessary
capacity.Thismeansanadditionalvessel,afreighter,
to serve
the connections. In order to make better
utilization of the additional cargo vessel, it should
alsobeusedtoserveotherislandsinthesamearea.
7 CONCLUSION
Theresearchquestionofthisstudywastoanalysethe
maritimeconnectionstosevenEstoniansmallislands
– Ruhnu, Kihnu, Manilaid, Abruka,
Vormsi, Prangli
anfPiirissaar.The following factorswere considered
when analysingthe small islandtraffic:speed, time,
reliability,frequency,passengerandvehiclevolumes,
vessel suitability, harbours, landside access to
harbours.
Althougheachislandʹstransportconnectionneeds
totakeintoaccountthespecificcharacteristicsofthe
islandandthecommunity,in
thebroadercontextitis
usefultohaveacoherentapproachtoplanningfixed
links.Inthisarticle,thisis done by determiningthe
service levels of the islandsʹ connections under
consideration. Under certain conditions, it is
necessary to look at passenger and freight transport
separately and to assign different
service levels to
them. This approach is suggested for the island of
Ruhnu. Passenger service would be at level 1 and
freight at level 3, which implies the use of different
vessels. In order to make better use of national
resources,avesseldedicatedtofreightcouldbeused
totransport
freighttootherislandsinthesamearea.
Major obstacle for the in‐depth analysis of the
connectionsofsmallinhabitedislandsinEstoniawas
lackofmoredetailedandcomparabledata.
Itshouldbenotedthattheresultspresentedinthis
articlearevalidforthesystemunderstudy,
withits
own parameters and constraints. At the same time,
the presented solution for the definition of service
levels, as well as the criteria influencing the
connections,canbeextendedtoothersimilarsystems.
This research brings new knowledge in the
academicliteraturebyapplyingtheuseoffourservice
levels
toarealworldcase.Wefoundthattheservice
levels give good start for the analysis, however,
factorsaffectingconnectionshave tobe definedcase
bycase.
Future studies in the same topic should find out
whether such a definition of service levels can be
appliedforotherisland
connectionsaswellandwhat
the determining criteria are for establishing
connections.
APPENDIX
Appendix1.BigandsmallinhabitedislandsinEstonia
________________________________________________
Island Area, PopulationDistancefrom
km
2
porttoport,nm
________________________________________________
Big Saaremaa 2673 31436
island Hiiumaa989 9557
Muhu 198 1998
Small Abruka 8,8 46 5(Roomassaare)
inhabited Aegna 3,01 21 7(Tallinn)
island Heinlaid1,49 6 2,7(Heltermaa)
Kesselaid 1,75 9 4(Virtsu)
Kihnu 17,33 700 10(Munalaid)
Kräsuli 1,69 5 2,4(Rohuneeme)
Kõinastu 2,62 8 2
Manija 2,06 49 0,5(Munalaid)
Naissaar18,93 22 9,3(Tallinn)
Piirissaar 7,76 102 4,5(Laaksaare)
Prangli 6,4 216 10(Leppneeme)
Ruhnu 11,9 179 37(Roomassaare)
43(Munalaid)
55(Pärnu)
Vilsandi 9,4 30 4,2(Papissaare)
Vormsi 95 444 5,4(Rohuküla)
Väike‐Pakri 13,5 9 2,2(Kurkse)
Mohni 0,61 5 2,5(Viinistu)
Viirelaid0,87 7 2,6(Kuivastu)
________________________________________________
REFERENCES
[1]“EUR‐Lex HTML (EN).” Accessed: Feb. 16, 2023.
[Online]. Available: https://eur‐lex.europa.eu/legal‐
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT
[2]T. Makkonen, M. Salonen, and S. Kajander, “Island
accessibility challenges: Rural transport in the Finnish
archipelago,”Eur.J.Transp.Infrastruct.Res.,vol.13,no.
4,pp.274–290,2013,doi:10.18757/ejtir.2013.13.4.3005.
[3]J. Á. Hernández Luis, “Temporal
accessibility in
archipelagos: Inter‐island shipping in the Canary
Islands,” J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 231–239,
2002,doi:10.1016/S0966‐6923(02)00014‐5.
[4]A. J. Baird, “Comparing the efficiency of public and
private ferry services on the Pentland Firth between
mainland Scotland and the Orkney Islands,” Res.
Transp.
Bus. Manag., vol. 4, pp. 79–89, Oct. 2012, doi:
10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.06.001.
[5]J.J.Laird,“Valuingthequalityofstrategicferryservices
toremotecommunities,”Res.Transp.Bus.Manag.,vol.
4,pp.97–103,Oct.2012,doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.06.013.
[6]I. Spilanis, T. Kizos, and P. Petsioti, “Accessibility of
peripheral regions: Evidence from Aegean
Islands
(Greece),” Isl. Stud. J., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 199–214, 2012,
doi:10.24043/isj.268.
[7]H.HøyemandJ.Odeck,“Assessingthesociallyoptimal
capacityataselectionofNorwegiancarferrycrossings,”
CaseStud.Transp.Policy,vol.10,no.1,pp.41–56,Mar.
2022,doi:10.1016/J.CSTP.2021.10.008.
[8]H. Høyem
and J. Odeck, “Optimal public transit
frequency under stochastic demand and fixed vehicle
size:ApplicationintheNorwegiancarferrysector,”Res.
Transp. Econ., vol. 82, Oct. 2020, doi:
10.1016/J.RETREC.2020.100878.
[9]J. Odeck and H. Høyem, “The impact of competitive
tenderingonoperationalcostsandmarketconcentration
inpublic transport:The
Norwegiancar ferryservices,”
Res. Transp. Econ., vol. 90, Dec. 2021, doi:
10.1016/J.RETREC.2020.100883.
[10]T.A.MathisenandG.Solvoll,“Servicequalityaspects
inferrypassengertransport‐ExamplesfromNorway,”
Eur.J. Transp.Infrastruct. Res.,vol. 10,no. 2,pp. 142–
157,2010,doi:10.18757/ejtir.2010.10.2.2879.
322
[11]“Tulevaisuuden yhteysalusliikenne Tulevaisuuden
yhteysalusliikenne–selvityskehittämistarpeista,”2021.
[12]M.Tanko,M.I.Burke,and H.Cheemakurthy,“Water
Transit and Ferry‐Oriented Development in Sweden:
ComparisonswithSystemTrendsinAustralia,”Transp.
Res. Rec., vol. 2672, no. 8, pp. 890–900, 2018, doi:
10.1177/0361198118782275.
[13]C. J. Khisty, “Level‐of‐Service
Measures for Ferry
Systems,”Transp.Res.Rec.,vol.1222,1989.
[14]F. Jørgensen and G. Solvoll, “Designing capacity and
service level at ferry crossings,” Transp.Res. Procedia,
vol. 26, pp. 215–223, Jan. 2017, doi:
10.1016/J.TRPRO.2017.07.022.
[15]C. Schürmann, “Transport Accessibility at Regional /
LocalScaleandPatternsinEurope,”2013.
[16]S.Karampela,T.Kizos,andI.Spilanis,“Accessibilityof
islands: Towards a new geography based on
transportation modes and choices,” Isl. Stud. J., vol. 9,
no.2,pp.293–306,Nov.2014,doi:10.24043/isj.307.
[17]“Glossary:Island region.”
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics‐
explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Island_region
(accessedFeb.17,2023).
[18]“Permanently Inhabited Small Islands Act–Riigi
Teataja.”
Accessed: Feb. 17, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/526122020001/consolid
e
[19]“Riigihalduse minister: väikesaarte nimistusse
arvatakse kaks uut saart | Rahandusministeerium.”
https://www.fin.ee/uudised/riigihalduse‐minister‐
vaikesaarte‐nimistusse‐arvatakse‐kaks‐uut‐saart
(accessedFeb.17,2023).
[20]“UNEP‐WCMC Resources.” https://resources.unep‐
wcmc.org/products/4785e7838e534cc1b477a40da391aab3
(accessedFeb.28,2023).
[21]“Uuendatakse püsiasustusega väikesaarte nimistut |
Rahandusministeerium.”
https://www.fin.ee/uudised/uuendatakse‐
pusiasustusega‐vaikesaarte
‐nimistut (accessed Mar. 13,
2023).
[22]U.P.Tapaninen, T.Hunt,D.Antov,T.Rõivas,andR.
Palu, “Väikesaarte transpordiühenduste analüüs,”
Tallinna Tehnikaülikool, Tallinn, 2022. [Online].
Available:
https://transpordiamet.ee/media/14550/download
[23]“Julkaisuja_04‐2009.pdf.” Accessed: Apr. 01, 2023.
[Online]. Available:
https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/1002
4/78292/Julkaisuja_04‐
2009.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
