For circalittorally coarse sediment, 4380 km2 is estimated to be disturbed by a total area of the habitat type of 4810 km2, which corresponds to 91% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU.

For circalittorally coarse sediment, 108.3 km2 has been estimated to be lost out of a total area of the habitat type of 4810 km2, which is equivalent to 2% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

For circalittorally mixed sediment, 2427 km2 is estimated to be disturbed by a total area of 2915 km2, which corresponds to 83% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU.

For circalittorally mixed sediment, 35.6 km2 is estimated to be lost out of a total area of 2915 km2, which corresponds to 1% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

For circalittoral mud, 1341 km2 is estimated to be disturbed out of a total area of habitat type of 1437 km2, which corresponds to 93% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU.

For circalittoral mud, 0.1 km2 is estimated to be lost out of a total area of the habitat type of 1437 km2, which corresponds to less than 0.1% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

Circalittoral rock, rock and biogenic reef are not found in the MRU. Stone reef is in the inventory calculated under mixed sediment.

Circalittoral rock, rock and biogenic reef are not found in the MRU.

For circalittoral sand, 18957 km2 is estimated to be disturbed by a total area of habitat type of 20322 km2, which corresponds to 93% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU.

For circalittoral sand, 211.4 km2 is estimated to be lost from a total area of the habitat type of 20322 km2, which is equivalent to 1% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

For infralittoral coarse sediment, 67 km2 is estimated to be disturbed by a total area of the 109 km2 habitat, which corresponds to 61% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU.

For infralittorally coarse sediment, 5.3 km2 was estimated to be lost from a total area of the 109 km2 habitat, which is equivalent to 5% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

For infralittorally mixed sediment, 207 km2 is estimated to be disturbed out of a total area of habitat type of 1347 km2, which is equivalent to 15% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU.

For infralittorally mixed sediment, 5 km2 is estimated to be lost out of a total area of the habitat type of 1347 km2, which corresponds to 0.4% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

For infralittoral mud, 49 km2 is estimated to be disturbed out of a total area of 1195 km2 of habitat, which is equivalent to 4% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU.

For infralittoral mud, 1.3 km2 is estimated to be lost out of a total area of 1195 km2 of habitat, which is equivalent to 0.1% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

For infralittoral rock, rock and biogenic reef, 1 km2 was estimated to be disturbed out of a total area of the 21 km2 habitat, which is equivalent to 4% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU. Stone reefs are in the inventory calculated under mixed sediment.

For infralittoral rock, rock and biogenic reef, 0.03 km2 was estimated to be lost from a total area of the 21 km2 habitat, which is equivalent to 0.1% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

For infralittoral sand, 1378 km2 is estimated to be disturbed out of a total area of the 5605 km2 habitat, which is equivalent to 25% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU.

For infralittoral sand, 29.1 km2 is estimated to be lost out of a total area of the habitat type of 5605 km2, which is equivalent to 0.5% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

For offshore circalittorally coarse sediment, 1653 km2 is estimated to be disturbed by a total area of 1873 km2 of habitat, which corresponds to approx. 88% of the overall habitat type is disturbed in the MRU.

For offshore circalittorally coarse sediment, 1 km2 is estimated to be lost out of a total area of 1873 km2 of habitat, which means that less than 0% of the overall habitat type is lost in the MRU.

For offshore circalittorally mixed sediment, 1988 km2 is estimated to be disturbed by a total area of the habitat type of 2345 km2, which corresponds to approx. 85% of the overall habitat type is disturbed in the MRU.

For offshore circalittorally mixed sediment, 0.005 km2 has been estimated to be lost from a total area of the habitat type of 2345 km2, which corresponds to less than 0.1% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

For offshore circalittoral mud, 17786 km2 is estimated to be disturbed by a total area of the habitat type of 18170 km2, which is equivalent to 98% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU.

For offshore circalittoral mud, 1 km2 is estimated to be lost out of a total area of the habitat type of 18170 km2, which corresponds to less than 0.1% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

In 2015, samples were collected for the first time from 10 new monitoring stations in the North Sea and from seven stations in the Kattegat. The Kattegat study shows high species diversity. The samples were collected, for example, in protected areas in the Kattegat designated under the Marine Strategy Directive. The condition assessment in three of the protected areas is good and for the other three areas the condition is assessed to be high. The assessment of bottom fauna data is based on the Danish Quality Index (DKI), which is also used to assess the bottom fauna condition in accordance with the EU Water Framework Directive. Compared to the Kattegat, monitoring of the North Sea shows significantly lower density and species numbers. The reason for the low biodiversity in the North Sea is unknown.

For offshore circalittoral sand, 12500 km2 is estimated to be disturbed by a total area of 13563 km2 of habitat, which corresponds to 92% of the overall habitat type being disturbed in the MRU.

For offshore circalittoral sand, 4.8 km2 has been estimated to be lost out of a total area of 13563 km2 of habitat, which means that less than 0.1% of the overall habitat type is lost in the MRU.

For upper bathyal sediment, 764 km2 is estimated to be disturbed by a total area of the habitat type of 853 km2, which corresponds to approx. 90% of the overall habitat type is disturbed in the MRU.

For offshore circalittorally mixed sediment, 0 km2 is estimated to be lost from a total area of the habitat type of 853 km2, which corresponds to less than 0% of the overall habitat type being lost in the MRU.

Eelgrass is predominantly distributed within 1 nautical mile of the coast, and the characterization and protection of eelgrass is therefore primarily related to the watercourse plans. For the MRU, the condition of eelgrass is considered to be from poor to good. The condition in relation to soft-bottom fauna is estimated to be from moderate to high. For both factors, the condition in some areas is assessed unknown. OSPAR has used the Danish state assessments for bottom fauna and eelgrass in an indicator to show correlation between nutrient enrichment and the state of coastal seabed habitats. OSPAR has summarized the state assessments as good and not good, with good including the Danish assessments good and high, while non-good includes the Danish assessments poor, poor and moderate. OSPAR has subsequently calculated the area allocation of areas by respectively good and not good condition. Throughout OSPAR's European area, more than 90% are in good condition. OSPAR emphasizes that the Danish state is not good.

For estuaries (1130), unfavorable conservation status has been assessed, including unfavorable status in relation to structure and function, as well as future prospects. The trend for the condition is assessed unknown for estuaries.

For shallow bay and cove (1160), unfavorable conservation status, including unfavorable status in relation to structure and function as well as future prospects, has been assessed. Trend for the condition is considered stable for shallow bay and cove.

For wading surface (1140), unfavorable conservation status has been assessed, including unfavorable status in relation to structure and function as well as future prospects. Trend for condition is considered unknown for wading surface.

For reefs (1170), unfavorable conservation status has been assessed, including unfavorable status in relation to structure and function, as well as future prospects. Trend for the condition is considered stable for reef. Monitoring results of macroalgae on rock reefs show that there has been a significant positive trend in both the average total and cumulative coverage of rock reefs. It can be seen that there were high coverage rates of algae vegetation on five selected rocky reefs, and the depth distribution of algae was good in both 2015, 2016 and 2017. In several cases, macroalgae distributions corresponded to modeled spreads for scenarios where nitrogen supply was greatly reduced. The positive development is probably due to improved water quality.

For sandbanks (1110), unfavorable conservation status has been assessed, including unfavorable status in relation to structure and function, as well as future prospects. The trend for the condition is estimated to be increasing for sandbanks.

For cold seep (1180), unfavorable conservation status has been assessed, including unfavorable status in relation to structure and function, as well as future prospects. Trend for the condition is considered stable for cold seep.

Pressure factors that cause disturbance in this analysis include: Fishing with bottom trawls, mussel dredging, dumping of material from dredging and similar, submarine communication cables, undersea tunnels, aquaculture. The total disturbance accounts for 85% (85.2%) of the MRU. Fishing with bottom-trapping gear constitutes the most significant disturbance (63484 km2). Next comes dumping (45 km2). Thus, there is a large extent of disturbance, but the intensity (fishing pressure) is very varied. That is, in some areas there is a high fishing pressure, while in many areas there is a relatively low fishing pressure. In Denmark, fishing is carried out with bottom-trapping gear, especially for fish, scampi and mussels. The calculation of the impact of the fishery includes both Danish and foreign fishing boats (over 12 meters) and certain smaller boats and was made for the year 2013. Fishing for fish and scampi is often done on the same sites year after year. Therefore, a single year's data will in general be an acceptable reflection of the distribution of fisheries. However, it is important to realize that there may be differences in the distribution of fisheries locally from year to year. Changes in fish stocks and target species over time can also have a major impact on the distribution of fisheries in some marine areas. This has been the case, for example, in the Kattegat, where there has been no targeted cod fishing in recent years. The sites for clam fishing, on the other hand, can change from year to year.The physical disturbance of the seabed from mussel dredging in recent years can thus be underestimated in the calculation. There are uncertainties in the estimation of disturbance from fisheries. This is partly because the majority of boats below 12 m are not included. They can fish in the same areas as the other boats (and thus do not affect the inventory), but they can also fish elsewhere, which will result in an underestimation. At the same time, the fish disturbance is calculated based on presence in a quadrant of 4x4 km. The whole quadrant is thus calculated as disturbed. It is not possible with this method to estimate how much of the quadrant is actually fished (see also section 13.4).

Pressure factors that cause losses included in this analysis: Bridges (incl. Land reclamation), Ports / facilities (incl. Land reclamation), Oil / gas installations (platforms and pipelines), Raw material areas, Deepening of canals. The total loss represents 1% (0.5%) of the MRU Raw material extraction leads to the largest loss share (386 km2), however, the estimate of losses caused by raw material extraction is larger than the actual area, since the entire recovery area is included despite that recovery is made only in parts of the area and despite the resident having to leave a layer of the original substrate in the area. The next biggest cause of loss is gullies (13.9 km2)