LIFE09 ENV/FI/000570 FINAL Report Covering the project ... · LIFE09 ENV FI 00570 LCA IN...

LIFE09 ENV FI 00570 LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report 15.5.2015


LIFE Project Number

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000570

FINAL Report Covering the project activities from 01/09/2009 to 31/12/2014

Reporting Date

15/05/2015

LIFE+ PROJECT NAME or Acronym

LCA IN LANDSCAPING

Project Data

Project location

Project start date: 01/09/2010

Project end date: 30/08/2014 Extension date: 31/12/2014

Total Project duration

(in months) 52 months (including Extension of 4 months)

Total budget 863,188.93 €

Total eligible budget 855,684.00 €

EU contribution: 420,316.00 €

(%) of total costs 48.7

(%) of eligible costs 49.1

Beneficiary Data

Name Beneficiary MTT Agrifood Research Finland (from 1.1.2015 Natural Resources

Institute Finland)

Contact person Mr Oiva Niemeläinen

Postal address Luke Planta, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland

Visit address Luke Planta, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland

Telephone +-358-295326000 ; direct +358-295326389

Fax: -

E-mail [email protected] / [email protected]

Project Website www.lcainlandscaping.fi

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.lcainlandscaping.fi/


2

1. List of contents

1. List of contents ....................................................................................................................... 2 2. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 3 3. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Description of the management system ........................................................................... 9

4. Technical part ....................................................................................................................... 14 4.1. Technical progress, per task .......................................................................................... 14

4.1.3 Action 1 Specifications ........................................................................................... 15 4.1.2 Action 2 Demonstrations ......................................................................................... 16 4.1.3 Action 3 LCA tools ................................................................................................. 24

4.1.4 Action 4 Cost-benefit Analysis ............................................................................... 34 4.1.5 Action 7 Monitoring ................................................................................................ 38

4.1.6 Action 8 After Life Communication Plan .............................................................. 39 4.2 Dissemination actions .................................................................................................... 40

4.2.1. Objectives ............................................................................................................... 40 4.2.2. Dissemination activities by Actions ....................................................................... 42

4.3 Evaluation of Project Implementation ............................................................................ 46

4.4 Analysis of long-term benefits ....................................................................................... 48 5. Comments on the financial report ........................................................................................ 50

5.1. Summary of Costs Incurred ........................................................................................... 51 5.2. Accounting system ........................................................................................................ 52

5.3. Partnership arrangements .............................................................................................. 53 5.4. Auditor's report/declaration ........................................................................................... 54

6. Annexes ................................................................................................................................ 56

6.1 Administrative annexes .................................................................................................. 56

6.2 Technical annexes .......................................................................................................... 56 6.3 Dissemination annexes ................................................................................................... 60

6.3.1 Layman's report ........................................................................................................... 60 6.4 Final table of indicators .................................................................................................. 63

7. Financial report and annexes ................................................................................................ 63

ABREVIATIONS:

MTT MTT Agrifood Research (Coordinating beneficiary)

HAMK HAMK University of Applied Sciences (Beneficiary)

VYL Finnish Association of Landscaping Industries (Beneficiary)

VIHER Viherrakenne Jaakkola Ltd (Beneficiary)

AGROP Agropolis Ltd (Beneficiary)

Luke Natural Resources Institute Finland (MTT is part of Luke since 1.1.2015)

Envor Envor Biotech Oy (biogas plant & composting biowaste and producing

GHG Green house gases

HS Vesi Hämeenlinnan Seudun Vesi Oy (Hämeenlinna waste water treatment plant)

HSY Helsingin seudun ympäristöpalvelut; Helsinki Region Environmental Services

Authority

IFPRA International Federation of Park and Recreation Administration

Kekkilä Kekkilä Oy (Substrate producing company)

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

Mustankorkea Waste water treatment plant producing growing media products

PwC PwC Julkistarkastus Oy


3

2. Executive Summary

Objectives of the project were to a) demonstrate use of recycled materials in lawn area

establishment and maintenance, b) develop application of life cycle assessment on

landscaping, c) produce Cost-benefit value assessment for using recycled materials in

landscaping and d) demonstrate use of recycled materials landscaping sites in urban areas.

The use of waste derived landscaping materials was demonstrated at twenty various green

cover area establishment and management sites. The demonstration sites were establishments

in eight cities /municipalities. In total 20 demonstrations with two or more comparable

treatments were arranged. The environmental effects were assessed by applying Life Cycle

Assessment (LCA) method. LCA is not much applied yet on landscaping therefore LCA tools

was produced to be applied to compare various establishment and management options when

planning new amenity areas, hence helping to optimise the process in terms of environmental

impact. The project produced first specifications of lawn establishment and management

processes for LCA tool construction. In cost benefit assessment of use of recycled material

vs. conventional material in landscaping was carried out from three points of view:

economical, sociological and environment. The study showed benefits of using recycled

materials e.g composted digested residue of waste water sludge and composted municipal

solid waste.

The project raised awareness of the positive environmental effects of the use of municipal

solid biowaste and sludge derived growing media and fertilizer products in landscaping.

Target groups in awareness raising were municipal landscaping personnel, the private

landscaping industry and the general public. The positive effect of the use of recycled

materials in green area establishment on green house gas balances, nutrient leaches,

acidification impact and energy requirement was demonstrated by the LCAs.

The results of the project are applicable in landscaping in the Northern European conditions

and the approach of applying LCA to landscaping will be applicable to all over Europe but the

actual input process data needs to be modified to suit local conditions. For example

eutrophication impact is different in countries with different circumstances. The LCA

approach identified the knowledge shortage points where more data is needed to make the

environmental evaluations more accurate. Also one problem in applying LCA methodology in

practise in landscaping is wide variability of background data. More data is needed for specify

the best actions to reduce many of the environmental impacts connected with substrate

production and use.

The obtained results indicate the production of substrate causes the main climate impact.

Particularly replacing peat in substrate production by compost would give benefits in climate

impact in the LCA calculations as carbon dioxide from peat degradation is consider as fossil

carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions from compost as biogenic carbon dioxide.

Special attention should be paid on getting data on climate impact caused by methane and

dinitrogen monoxide emissions in composting processes. Contrary to the preliminary

expectations the fuel consumption in lawn area maintenance and establishment did not have

substantial role in climate impact assessment. It did, however, have role in primary energy use

although much smaller than anticipated.

Action 1 “Specifications” produced process description of lawn establishment and

maintenance processes. Action 1 also provided values which were basis for Action 3 “LCA


4

tool” generation. Specifications described the procedures used in different types of lawn area

establishment and maintenance occasions. Work focused on high quality park and home

garden lawns and the calculations for Action 3 were also made for them. Functional

specification for establishment and maintenance of amenity area lawns was produced by

model which included all the steps from establishment to maintenance of various types of

amenity lawn areas. Material and labour inputs for various steps were based on data and

guidelines obtained from manuals, management guidelines, contract models, research studies

and interviews. Quality criteria for different purpose amenity lawns were specified.

Specifications were produced for three different quality levels of amenity lawns: a) high

quality amenity parks in cities, b) private home garden lawns, c) low maintenance municipal

park lawn areas. Process description produced with values included for establishment and

maintenance processes to three types of amenity lawn areas. Situations were identified at

which the recycled products can be used in green cover production and maintenance. Action

produced useful material to curriculum at HAMK Landscaping education.

Action 2 “Demo” arranged demonstration sites at which use of recycled materials in lawn

establishment was exhibited. The sites were planned in collaboration with local city

gardeners. Four locations were at the project beneficiaries locations. In summer 2011 ten

demonstrations were established at five locations: Jokioinen, Lepaa, Pori, Jyväskylä and

Hämeenlinna. In addition, pot trials were initiated at MTT Jokioinen to provide additional

information. Materials for the demonstrations were obtained from substrate producers and

waste water treatment plants which produce substrates as well. Local growing media

producers were used to obtain the conventional growing media. In 2012 further nine new

demonstrations were established at three new geographical locations: Marketanpuisto

Exhibition Park in Espoo, Forssa and Ylistaro. In addition to park type amenity lawns also

meadows, noise protection wall and green roof demonstrations were established. Sod turf was

used in demonstration sites in Forssa and Espoo. In addition demonstrating sod turf

production using recycled materials were carried out at MTT sites at Jokioinen and Ylistaro.

Demonstrations were on eight locations in Finland and the total number of demonstrations

was 20. Pot trials for GHG measurements (N2O) and on nutrient leaching were carried out at

MTT in Jokioinen. Demonstration showed successful use of recycled materials in

landscaping. The demonstrations included different substrate materials for 20 cm thick

substrate layer when lawn areas are established. Demonstrations served for exhibition

purposes in addtition to for gathering information for LCA and cost benefit studies. Lawns

established in the demonstrations with recycled materials performed well and no big

differences were observed in relation to conventional establishment materials. Also

establishing demos in city areas did not raise any objections in the neighbourhood and the

successful demonstration of recycled materials lower the barriers and attitudes among public

and among landscaping professional for their use landscaping.

Action 3 The action constructed the LCA tools device to facilitate the LCA calculations in

the production of substrates, amenity lawn establishment and maintenance area. “LCA tools”

used specifications produced in Action 1 for various types of amenity lawn areas. Pilot

substrates of different producers and different peat and compost contents were used.

Calculations show that the use of recycled materials in lawn area establishment resulted in

considerable benefits in certain categories of environmental impacts. The work on Action 3

pooled together information of Actions 1 “Specifications” and 2 “Demo”. The produced LCA

tools is an excel programme to run life cycle analysis on all processes in production of

substrates, lawn area establishment and maintenance. Data for calculations was produced by

literature studies as well as by own measurements.


5

The system boundaries consisted of substrate production including production of peat,

mineral soils and compost and mixing of the materials, establishment of lawn (earth moving,

site preparation, spreading the substrate, soil tillage, sowing and rolling, fertilizing and

liming) and maintenance process of the lawn, especially mowing. Also environmental impacts

of lawn maintenance input materials as fertilizer production, lime production and the

emissions caused by decomposing of lime and fertilizers were taken into account. The impact

categories in calculation were climate change, aquatic eutrophication, acidification and

primary energy use. The tool was tested with four pilot substrates and one substrate scenario,

which had different amounts of various organic materials (waste water sludge-based compost,

municipal biowaste-based compost and peat) and different nutrient contents. The investigation

was done by using LCA-methodology and standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. One

challenge was to evaluate emissions concerning composting and nutrient leaches. There was

large variation of the emissions found in literature as well as in measurements and IPCC

emissions factors concerning GHG and ammonia. As a solution, the most suitable values

found in literature, which were in some cases average values from different investigations,

were used. The most common literature source was Boldrin et al. (2010). In our study a 20 cm

thick substrate layer was assumed for lawn establishment which means that 2000 m3

of

substrates for one hectare lawn area. Production chain of substrates was found the most

essential considering all studied impact categories. Especially degradation of peat was

observed essential concerning climate impact. Other important parts of the product chain were

dinitrogen monoxide oxide and methane emissions in composting. The peat degradation can

be almost 95 % of the climate impact of lawn areas if peat is the only organic material in the

substrate. Therefore the results suggest that the most effective way to reduce carbon footprint

(climate impact) of landscaping is to replace peat by compost. For compost-based substrates

dinitrogen monoxide and methane emissions in composting are the most important sources of

GHGs, but it has to be kept in mind that a big part of these emissions occur in every case,

because the sludge and biowaste has to be treated in some way. Ammonia emissions of

composting are the most important factor in acidification, but there are means to recover it

and reduce emissions even by 95 %. Significance of the fuel consumption of machinery in

lawn establishment and mowing were low in all the other impact categories except primary

energy use, where share of mowing was 14-25 % depending on the contents of substrate. The

compost-based materials have often high concentration of nutrient, which lead to nitrogen and

phosphorus loads to water systems. In general, there was a strong correlation between

eutrophication impact of lawn areas and compost content of substrate. Because eutrophication

impacts are local, it means that the local conditions must be taken into account, when

compost-based substrate is used. There is need to optimize the contents of substrate which

takes into account both GHG emissions and nutrient leaches of lawn areas.

The tool calculated the climate impact, eutrophication impact, acidification impact and

primary energy use of lawn areas. The tool is a good starting point, when optimizing the

environmental impacts of landscaping. It takes into account the changes in composition of

substrates on environmental impacts of landscaping. By using the tool the contents of

substrate can be optimized: higher peat content increases GHG emissions and higher compost

content increases phosphorus and nutrient leaches, but reduces GHG emissions. One

observation is that more measurement data in needed, especially how the different

circumstances has an impacts on degradation rate of peat, GHG and ammonia emissions in

composting and nitrogen and phosphorus leaches in lawn areas. The tool could be used also to

compare the environment impact of changes in lawn maintenance procedures and intensity.

e.g. between artificial vs. recycled fertilizer products or lawn grass mixtures of different

mowing demand. The tool can be used in European level to investigate environmental impact

of landscaping when the input data is adjusted to local conditions.


6

Action 4 “Cost-benefit analysis”

The Cost-benefit value assessment identified the costs and revenues in lawn establishment

and maintenance processes comparing conventional processes to processes using recycled

materials from economical, sociological and environment point of view. The study showed

benefits of using recycled materials (e.g composted digested residue of waste water sludge

and composted municipal solid biowaste). The study showed economical benefits by use of

recycled materials. This was due to the fact the substrates containing waste as raw materials in

production were cheaper to buy. Recycled materials had also beneficial effects in societal

analysis while the processes provided working opportunities on the compost and substrate

production sites. Recycled materials were beneficial also from environmental point of view,

when the costs of different environmental impacts were assessed and compared to each other.

Main reason for this is that peat is considered in calculations fossil material and compost

biogenic. Another reason is in the methodology, which evaluated of the costs of higher

climate impact of peat-based substrates more remarkable than higher eutrophication and

acidification impact of compost-based substrates. In cost-benefit analysis we, however, have

to remember that all analysis are case specific. Our case was Mustankorkea substrate

production plant in Jyväskylä.

Action 5 “Dissemination” involved several stakeholders into project activities both during

demonstration planning and carry out as well as in the development of LCA tool. Several

stakeholder companies were visited and interviewed to obtain information for the LCA and

Cost-benefit calculations as well as Specifications production. The demonstration sites were

used for dissemination activities like for the LIFE20 celebration on May 22nd

in 2012 in

Forssa as one example. The main annual landscaping and horticultural Fair at Lepaa in 2011,

2012, 2013 and 2014 served every year very well to exhibit the demonstrations at Lepaa. Upto

ten thousand persons participate in the Lepaa fairs. Utilising the existing traditional fairs and

annual conferences in dissemination actions proved to be very cost efficient way in

dissemination. The Mid-Term seminar was arranged on 17.8.2012 in conjunction with the

LEPAA2012 fair and the Final seminar was arranged 9th

of December 2014 at Hämeenlinna

city and members from various stakeholder groups participated in the seminar.

“Dissemination” was active in international arena while the project activities were presented

at the European Congress of the International Federation of the Park and Recreation

Authorities in Basel, Switzerland, and at Copenhagen Denmark and Novi Sad in Serbia at

SETAC conferences which are special occasions for the LCA research specialists. The project

was active in seminars and scientific and public awareness occasions to inform of the project

for various stakeholder groups in Finland and abroad. Dissemination work will continue in

After Life phase.

Action 6 “Management” faced challenges as two of the five beneficiaries withdrew of the

project due to general economical difficulties. AGROP, an development company, was filed

for bankcrupt and VYL changed it’s activity by saying of all staff and continuing operation

on different bases. General economical situation was challenging. However, the management

succeeded in meeting the goals of the project.

Action 7 “Monitoring” operated actively in the project and jointly with the project team

produced risk analyses and helped the management of the project to pay attention to areas

requiring special attention. For example monitoring paid attention on importance of

dissemination in the project and an annual dissemination plans were produced by the Project

Team and Management Board. “Monitoring” was very active and provided valuable

information for the project Ac 6 “Management”. Monitoring was profound and identified


7

risks and weaknesses in the operation which the management took into account and made

actions to secure progress and completion of the project tasks.

The After LIFE communication will be active while the project personnel at LUKE have a

intension to continue the activity. This includes e.g. that in the possible new projects carried

out e.g. by Natural Resources Institute Finland on this subject area the demonstration sites and

results of this project could be utilized e.g. in follow up studies. Future work is anticipated to

fill up the knowledge gaps identified in the LCA analysis. Mr Mikko Jaakkola from VIHER is

chairman of VYRA (Association of Landscaping entrepreneurs in Finland) to which 130 of

the Finnish landscaping entrepreneurs belong to. The LCA tool is a useful mean to study how

using different raw materials in substrate production will effect on environment impacts.

This is anticipated to lead to further development projects. Application of the produced LCA

tool to study various lawn maintenance options opens also a way to study the environmental

impacts of various maintenance alternatives.

Total budget for the project was 863 188,93 € with EU contribution 420 326,00 €. MTT

Agrifood Research Finland (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) since 1.1.2015) was

coordinating beneficiary and HAMK University of Applied Sciences and Viherrakenne

Jaakkola Oy the other beneficiaries during the whole project period as Agropolis Limited

(30.6.2012) and VYL The Finnish Association of Landscape Industries (30.3.2013)

participated in the project implementation but withdrew before project completion (Annex

Ac6 2 and Annex Ac6 3).

3. Introduction

The challenge of managing waste flows and treating the waste materials safely with regard to

environment has been difficult and this was targeted in the project. Using of waste derived

products has also faced attitude barriers among public as landscaping professionals.

Demonstrations using recycled waste-derived materials was done to break the public opinion

barriers to use the recycled material – particularly from waste water treatment plants. This is

due to the uncertainties related to the quality of the materials and to consumer attitudes.

Complying with the Landfill directive (1999/31/EC) has created a strong need to find

sustainable end usage for biological waste-derived material, which from beginning of 2016

will not be allowed to be deposited in landfill. Main amount of compost has been used in

landscaping in landfill areas and it is needed to assimilate greater amounts recycled materials

in landscaping in general.

The environmental goal in this demonstration project focused to develop and implement

processes designed to ensure sustainable management and use of waste, and to improve the

environmental performances of waste-derived landscaping products, sustainable production

and sustainable life-time of lawn areas. Changing attitudes more favourable for use of

recycled materials in landscaping was one goal.

The project developed the suitability of life cycle assessment method (ISO 14040,

ISO14044) to investigate environmental impacts in landscaping. The main question was to

assess the environmental impacts when changing the organic material of substrates used in

landscaping from peat to compost. It is known that using compost as substrate has some

environmental benefits: it prevents the amounts of sewage sludge and biowaste to go to

landfilling and that way methane emissions of landfilling are avoided. Reduced amount of

materials in landfilling have already reduced the GHG emissions of the waste sector of EU-28


8

31,5 % during 1990-2012 (EEA 2014). According to Barth et al. (2008) 17 % of compost in

Europe ends up to landscaping and in Finland it has been evaluated that annual amount of

sewage sludge is one million tons. Also need for artificial fertilizers produced by fossil energy

is decreased that way in landscaping. That is an important ecological and economic issue,

because it leads to lesser use of natural resources and smaller fertilizer costs. Compost

application in landscaping can lead to carbon sequestration, which can be after 100 years

between 2 and 14 % (Smith et al. 2001).

The fundamentals of composting are waste volume reduction, waste stabilization, sanitation

of the material and adding value to the final product. Outputs of the composting process are

CO2 and other gaseous emissions (CH4, N2O, NH3, VOC), heat, water, minerals and

biologically stabilized material, compost (Martinez-Blanco 2012). Dinitrogen monoxide,

ammonia and methane emissions are the main emissions to the air connected to composting

process and eutrophication impact from nitrogen and phosphorus leaches are also announced

to be remarkable as compost-based substrates can be very rich with nutrients (Kangas & Salo

2010).

Another organic material in landscaping is peat. The problem of peat use in landscaping is

related to climate impact: peat degradation level is 86 % of the carbon content of peat (Karhu

et al. 2012). GHG emissions of peat product chain are almost totally limited to carbon dioxide

emissions. Peat does not contain as much nutrients as compost, so mineral fertilizers have to

be used when peat is used as organic material in substrates.

This project responded to market demands to pay attention to availability and suitability of

substrates including recycled materials for use in landscaping. Choice of lawn seed mixtures

and demonstration and testing these in various climatic conditions was also exhibited.

The LCA covered the production chain from production phase all the way up to the

maintenance years. Application of LCA into amenity area establishment and maintenance was

innovative expansion how to use LCA approach. This provided valuable new information.

The project focused on urban areas, where waste flows are massive, where turnover of cycled

material has to be fast and where transfer distances to landscaping customers are short.

The Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union (from 2008)

suggested that if compost is replacing industrial fertilizers, the benefits usually will be

significant1. Also the replacement of peat moss would yield environmental benefits. The LCA

calculation results confirm that.

More waste needs to be recycled in the future. Innovative methods and technologies for the

utilization of waste-derived materials in landscaping will create jobs. Creating high value

products from waste increases the value of the waste itself, hence creating greater incentive

for its sorting and collection. Increasing recycling has economic benefits for many actors. The

LCA tool produced in the project will promote designing environmentally friendly products.

Waste-management companies participated in information exchange and to adapt the

solutions developed by the project. Envor Biotech, HS Vesi Ltd and HSY provided recycled

1 Heidelberg, 2002.


9

material to be demonstrated and tested and as well as valuable information of their substrate

production processes. They can utilize the information produced in the project to adjust their

processes to take the environmental impact better into account that earlier. Landscaping

businesses participated in information exchange and adapted the solutions developed by the

project. Municipalities with park establishment and road construction and associations

establishing amenity areas collaborated. The municipal amenity landowners Pori, Jyväskylä,

Hämeenlinna, Forssa and Espoo provided good geographical coverage in addition to the

beneficiares MTT and HAMK. All stakeholders were targeted in dissemination action and

participated in the events the project exhibited activities.

Mikko Jaakkola as a landscaping entrepreneur at beneficiary VIHER was a valuable link to

professional landscaping businesses. From 2015 Mr Jaakkola is the chairman on the VYRA

Association which consists of 130 landscaping companies in Finland.

Educational establishments in landscaping benefited from the produced material for their

curriculum. Three theses at different levels were produced by the project. Public authorities –

also on the European level – obtain valuable information for decision-making and legislation.

Particularly adoption of the LCA assessment tool to evaluate different environmental impacts

will be a useful mean to be applied.

Activity fit well to Finnish national priorities: “promoting waste prevention, recovery and

recycling with a focus on life-cycle thinking and promoting circular economy.

3.1 Description of the management system

Coordinating beneficiary MTT was an expert body operating under the Finnish Ministry of

Agriculture and Forestry with about 300 researchers carrying out agricultural and food

research, and economic and environmental research relating to agriculture. MTT’s Plant

Production Research delivered the basic knowledge as well as the methods for landscaping

actions as well as assess the environmental impact of cultivation. MTT was on Europe's most

northerly research establishment on agriculture in the world. MTT had extensive research in

several fields of grass production including establishment and management of amenity lawns.

Use of recycled composted materials had been studied in field and horticultural production

and recycling. Environmental dimensions of agrifood production are covered by several

research projects. MTT had gathered experience in methodology development and

applications of life cycle assessment (LCA). Activities of MTT continue from 1.1.2015 onward

in the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) as MTT Agrifood Finland merged on

1.1.2015 together with the Forest Research Institute and the Finnish Game and Fishery

Research Institute to form the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke).

The bank account number of the coordinating beneficiary will remain the same as earlier in

this project but the owner of the account is named Luke from 1.1.2015.

Viherympäristöliitto ry (VYL) - The Finnish Association of Landscaping Industries is an

organisation dealing with urban and rural landscape management in Finland. The organisation

develop and promote different areas in the green industry. It was founded in 1991. VYL

operates by arranging exhibitions and periodic events; providing Internet

services (www.vyl.fi) and publishing the trade magazine Viherympäristö (Green

Environment) in co-operation with the Central Organisation for Finnish Horticulture

(Puutarhaliitto ry). Due to financial difficulties VYL had to reorganize it’s operation and

http://www.vyl.fi/


10

whole staff was said off at the end of March 2013 which lead to withdrawal of VYL of the

project (Annex Ac6 3). However, VYL continues as Association and provides a valuable

information channel on landscaping businesses and will have a role in the After LIFE

communication.

HAMK University of Applied Sciences (HAMK) (www.hamk.fi) is a multidisciplinary

university of applied sciences with 25 first-cycle degree programmes, 5 second-cycle degree

programmes and around 7000 students. It offers broad-based education, research and

development. International activities at HAMK include international education, research and

development projects as well as mobility. HAMK has over 100 partners all over the world.

Centres of expertise, developed in co-operation with companies and municipalities, support

degree-awarding education as well as research and continuing education.

HAMK's degree programmes in Horticulture and Landscape Design are located at Lepaa, in

the municipality of Hattula. Also Häme Vocational Institute's study programmes in

Horticulture and Landscaping Industries are situated at Lepaa. The unit has a horticultural

library open public.

Viherrakenne Jaakkola Oy (VIHER) (www.viherrakennejaakkola.fi) has a long experience

in landscaping and gardening sector both in Forssa and capital area. Jaakkola is a private

company working in landscaping services and construction e.g. on lawn establishment and

maintenance.

Associated beneficiary Agropolis Oy (Ltd.) (AGROP) was a non-profit development

company operating in the food and environmental sectors. Agropolis carried out different

kinds of national and international agrifood development projects. Agropolis Oy met financial

difficulties and withdrew from the project in 30.6.2012 (Annex Ac6 2). Its operation was

completely ceased and the company went to bankrupt in 2013.

Organogramme of the project team and the project management structure

The partnership agreement (Annex Ac6 1) described the project and responsibilities and rights

of the project partners and procedures (e.g. Common provisions). Project management

structure was specified in the agreement. Partnership agreements were signed in December

2010. Management Board based on partnership structure and had members of all

beneficiaries. The members in the management board had authority to allocate resources in

their organization and secure availability of resources to carry out the tasks.

http://www.viherrakennejaakkola.fi/


11

Organogramme of the management board.

Project team structure.

Chair: Director Aarne Kurppa; Harri Huhta,

Markku Järvenpää, MTT

Representative from VYL

Pekka Leskinen until 30.3.2013.

Representative from AGROP

Juha Pirkkamaa until 30.6.2012.

Representative from VIHER

Mikko Jaakkola

Representative from HAMK

K. Hänninen/ Heikki Peltoniemi

Experts (Internal Monitoring Pekka

Manninen) and other experts

participate in the meeting as

experts. Secretary of the Management Board

Project manager Oiva Niemeläinen, MTT

Chair: Project manager

Action 6: Management

Oiva Niemeläinen, MTT

Action 1: Specifications

Responsible Sari Suomalainen &

Maire Rannikko, HAMK

Action 4: Cost benefit

Responsible Juha Pirkkamaa & Minna

Riekkinen, AGROP

From 1.7.2012 Sirpa Kurppa MTT

Action 3: LCA tools

Responsible Sirpa Kurppa, MTT

From 1.7.2012 Frans Silvenius, MTT

Action 2: Demonstration

Responsible Oiva Niemeläinen,

MTT

Action 5: Dissemination

Responsible Pekka Leskinen, VYL

From 1.4.2013 Oiva Niemeläinen, MTT

Representative from Beneficiary

VIHER participated in the meetings

Mikko Jaakkola

Action 7: Monitoring

Responsible (Pasi Voutilainen until 31.12.2010;

Pekka Manninen from 1.1.2011, MTT


12

Project team coordinated the activities of each action. Project manager headed the project

team meetings and was secretary in the management board meetings. Internal monitoring

expert participated in the project team meetings to follow up progress of the project and

reported to the management board. Project’s Financial Secretary Taru Könkö informed the

accounting personnel in the other beneficiaries of the guidelines and procedures to be

followed concerning accounting issues, and executed the financial tasks and reporting in the

project together with the project manager. Guidelines and templates were produced and

delivered to relevant persons in the beneficiaries. A stand-by financial secretary (Mrs Marja

Korpi, MTT) was incorporated into the activity as a measure for securing financial

administration in case Taru Könkö could not be available.

Due to withdrawal of beneficiary AGROP (1.7.2012) changes in the project team and

management board occurred. The management board had four members and after further

VYL withdrawal three members. Prof. Sirpa Kurppa took responsibility of the Action 4

“Cost-benefit analysis”, and Mr. Frans Silvenius of the Action 3 “LCA tools”. In addition,

Ms. Tiina Ruuskanen focused on Cost-benefit analysis issues. She completed her diploma

work to University of Oulu on costs-benefit topic in this project. After withdrawal of VYL

30.3.2013 responsibility of the Action 5 “Dissemination” was handed over to MTT and

Project Manager Oiva Niemeläinen. Project manager was already responsible for Actions 6

Management and Action 2 Demonstration. This was a forced situation in the circumstances

which was manageable but not an optimal solution.

Request for Amendment of Project Agreement was send to Commission by 27.3.2013 and the

Amendment request was approved for signing on 30.4.2013. Administration focused to secure

progress of the project at withdrawal of the beneficiaries AGROP and VYL which were

responsible for Actions 4 “Cost-benefit analysis” and Action 5 “Dissemination”. That nearly

all beneficiaries had worked jointly in Actions alleviated the challenge to transfer the leading

role in those actions to coordinating beneficiary. Withdrawal of the beneficiaries AGROP and

VYL was informed in good time which helped project management to organize needed

expertise to meet the enlarged activity area by the coordinating beneficiary MTT. The

changes were discussed and planned in Project team and Management Board meetings. The

amendment (Annex Ac6 2) of the grant agreement increased demand for MTT’s own funding

due to larger part in the project. The project management succeeded to negotiate additional

funding for the project from MTT’s own resources for years 2013 and 2014 which facilitated

to take larger responsibility of the carry out of actions by MTT.

Project team had meetings quarterly and the management board had meetings twice a year.

The partners arranged representatives to the meetings as appropriate. Project team had an

orientation meeting on 6.9.2010 and meetings on: 8.11.2010; 18.1.2011; 24.3.2011;

31.5.2011; 23.8.2011; 25.10.2011; 1.2.2012; 20.3.2012; 16.5.2012.; 10.9.2012; 15.10.2012;

14.3.2013; 10.5.2013; 27.8.2013; 24.2.2014 and 5.9.2014 and in addition an annual feed back

meetings (11.1.2013 and 10-11.12.2013). After withdrawal of AGROP and VYL the Project

team meetings based on Actions’s activities to follow the progress of the project.

The Management Board had in total 8 meetings (dates: 14.12.2010; 24.3.2011; 10.11.2011,

6.4.2012, 14.10.2012., 19.3.2013, 18.11.2013, and meeting on 25.3.2014 which was

completed on 11.6.2014. Powerpoint material and briefs of the Project team and Management

Board meetings are available on request (in Finnish) and have been provided to all

beneficiaries.


13

Project had several short term workers particularly for the summer activities. Work related to

hiring and consulting short term personnel generated workload for management.

The following reports have been submitted prior to Final Report:

Inception Report (6.4.2011)

Mid-Term Report (30.10.2012)

Request for Amendment of the Grant Agreement (27.3.2013)

Progress Report 2.12.2013

3.2 Evaluation of the management system

Commitment to project was good among the beneficiaries. The project got good and timely

support from the external monitoring personnel. The external monitoring team (Mr Hänninen

and Mr Ojala) paid a monitoring visit to the project on 1st of April 2011 to inform of the

procedures of LIFE programme and assessing the viability of the project

The general economic slowdown in business life burdened beneficiaries. Beneficiary AGROP

(Agropolis Ltd) announced in June 2012 (Annex Ac6 2) that it has to withdraw of the project

due to the fact the company will be closed down in 2012. This anticipated withdrawal was

discussed during the EC monitoring visit of Ms Martina Ver Eycken and Ms Anne-Marie

Tuomala to the project in June 13-14, 2012. Measures were taken to continue the activities of

AGROP’s responsibility area in the project agreement. Also beneficiary VYL communicated

a need to renegotiate the consortium agreement due to financial difficulties and changes in the

operation mode of VYL (Annex Ac6 3). VYL withdrew from project on 30.3.2013. A request

for Amendment of the Project Agreement was submitted to EC when the future role of

beneficiary VYL in the project was clarified on 27.3.2013. Financial situation hit also the

public beneficiaries MTT and HAMK. MTT renewed its strategy in 2010 and unexpectedly

landscaping was specified as one of the areas which volume will be reduced in MTT’s

agenda. This decision increased pressure for the project management to achieve MTT’s own

funding for the project.

The project operation was adjusted to the withdrawal of beneficiaries (AGROP and VYL).

The amendment was approved by 30th

of April 2013 by the Commission (Annex Ac6 2). The

amendment of the agreement did not change the objectives and goals of the project but the

amendment included extension of the project period by four months to the end of year 2014.

Project responsibilities of the withdrawn beneficiaries AGROP and VYL were taken over by

the coordinating beneficiary MTT. The amendment did not change responsibilities and work

of beneficiaries HAMK and VIHER. Project Board members changed due to retirement and

to due to organizational changes.

Financial desk officer Ms Martina Ver Eycken and external monitor Anne-Marie Tuomala

paid a monitoring visit to the project in June 13-14, 2012. During their visit the demonstration

sites were visited and project’s procedures and progress were discussed. The new electronic

work time recording system had been taken into operation at MTT in January 2012. The

electronic signatures were accepted to be valid signatures under certain conditions as

specified in the follow up letter dated July 12th

2012 by Mr Capitao. Mr Capitao also asked to

keep the external monitoring team informed of the need for request for amendment of the

project agreement. Also the postponement of the Mid-Term Report was discussed with Ms

Ver Eycken and external monitoring during their visit. A postponing request of Mid-Term

Report from 31.8.2012 to 30.10.2012 was send by email to Desk officer Mr. Federico Nogara

on 7.7.2012 and on 9.7.2012 Mr Nogara informed by email: “I agree with postponing your


14

MTR, as you suggested, to Oct 30th, 2012. Should it be further delayed for any justified

reason, you will then send us a progress report instead; 2) Following the description of the

nature and size of the changes necessary to your project, which you will include in your next

MTR (or progress report), you may be requested to present an additional clause, in order to

include the relevant modifications in your grant agreement”.

External monitoring expert Mrs Anne-Marie Tuomala visited the project again on 16th

of

November 2012 and advised on the Project Agreement Amendment procedure. Mr. Pekka

Hänninen visited the project on 12th

of September 2013, and provided guidance on project

administrative and reporting issues.

On October 2013 Mr Pekka Hänninen informed that the Technical Desk Officer in EC has

changed and Mrs Izabela Madalinska will continue the work of Mr Frederico Nogara.

External monitoring experts Pekka Hänninen and Katja Lähdesmäki paid monitoring visit on

11th

of December 2014 and assessed the performance of the project and advised on the Final

Report and Financial Reports preparation.

Project manager Oiva Niemeläinen and LCA specialist Frans Silvenius participated in Green

week 3-6.6.2015 on invitation by Herve Martén. During the visit met e.g. Desk officer

Madalinska and financial desk officer.. and discussed project issues with them. The was a

useful occasion to meet other LIFE project personnel from many countries and to meet the

persons in charge of the operation from Commission direction.

On 1.1.2015 MTT merged with the Forest Research Institute and the Research Institute of

Game and Fishery forming Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). Establishing join

operational systems for the Luke in 2015 is still in process and has caused some delays. The

project requested postponement of the Final Report to 15th

of May by 20th

of March 2015 and

the request was kindly approved by the Technical Desk Officer Izabela Madalinska on April

21, 2015 (Annex Ac6 3).

4. Technical part

4.1. Technical progress, per task

The project focused on developing Life cycle assessment approach to landscaping activity on

establishment and maintenance of amenity lawn areas and substrate production. The projects

main task was to demonstrate successful use of recycled materials in amenity lawn area

establishment and management. Cost-benefit analysis studied the use of recycled, wasted

derived materials in landscaping from cost, environmental and socio-economic aspect.

Dissemination communicated the activities and results to the wide stakeholder groups. The

Annexes include deliverables, dissemination material and various types of indicators of

progress.


15

4.1.3 Action 1 Specifications

Name of the Deliverable or Milestone Deadline Categor

y Status

Specifications compiled for amenity lawn

establishment and management procedures

Annex Ac1 1 the draft version at the beginning of

the project and the completed one Annex Ac1 11 at

the end of the project.

28.2.2011 D Completed.

First Specification phase passed

Indicators 1-5, completed

Annex Ac1 2 and 3, Annex Ac1 4. Annex Ac1 5,

Annex Ac1 6, Annex Ac1 7, Annex Ac1 8, Annex

Ac1 9, Annex Ac1 10

28.2.2011 M Documents

produced for

project internal

use.

Specification phase completed

Indicators of progress:

Annex Ac1 2 and 3, Annex Ac1 4. Annex Ac1 5,

Annex Ac1 6, Annex Ac1 7, Annex Ac1 8, Annex

Ac1 9, Annex Ac1 10; Indicators 6 completed

31.7.2014 M Documents

updated from

Phase 1.

Completed and

published.

Specifying amenity lawn establishment and management procedures was one of the first steps

in the project to show which actions are most important to be taken into consideration in the

development of LCA model. Work on specifications action started rapidly and good

collaboration between partners was achieved and it provided a fruitful basis for the on-going

specifications process. A process description (Annex Ac1 1) was produced and first milestone

was reached. List of establishment process specifications for three intensity levels of laws

and of quantified management requirements (Progress indicators 2 & 3) were produced

(Annex Ac1 2_3) for project internal use. Booklet on lawn quality parameters (Indicator of

progress 4) (Annex Ac1 4) was produced as an educational material to landscaping students

and list of environmental impacts (Annex Ac1 5; Progress indicator 4) is included also as one

part of the updated Specifications were compiled for amenity lawn establishment and

management procedures (Annex Ac1 5). The data was obtained by literature studies,

discussing with experts of respective topics and by interviews by phone and web based

inquiries (Annexes Ac1 7; Ac1 8; Ac1 9 and Ac1 10). These methods were used in

supplementing the work procedures produced when defining specifications. The material was

used in Action 3 for producing LCA calculations. Literature studies were carried out for

estimating the environmental impacts of recycled growing media products.

Action participated in data production and updated the specifications in 2014 which was

completed at the end of the project (Annex Ac1_11 Updated specifications) which included

also the Bulletin of lawn quality characteristics and list of environmental impacts (Annex

Ac1_11). Possibilities to utilise recycled materials in lawn establishment and maintenance is

presented as one chapter in the compiled manual (Annex Ac1_11). The work provided data to

different processes in Action 3 “LCA tools” and Action 4 “Cost benefit-analysis”.

Three B.Sc. or M.Sc. thesis works were produced in the project (Annex Ac2_31; Ac3_5,

Ac4_3) and information was used in updating the specifications. In addition, material for

educational curriculum purposes at HAMK war produced as four powerpoint presentation

packages: on lawn area establishment (Annex Ac5 75), on lawn maintenance (Annex Ac5 76),


16

about lawn quality issues (Annex Ac5 77) and on landscaping’s environmental impacts

(Annex Ac5 78)

4.1.2 Action 2 Demonstrations

Name of the Deliverable, Indicator of

progress or Milestone

Deadline Category Status

Plan for projects first year demonstration

establishment: Annex Ac2 6

31.5.2011 D Was produced from

May to October in

2011 as work

progressed.

Plan for projects 2nd

summer

establishments

Annex Ac2 7

31.5.2012 D Was produced from

May to October in

2012 as work

progressed.

Report of demonstration results and

experiences Annex Ac2 28

31.7.2014

30.11.2014

D Completed at the end

of the project.

First summer demonstrations founded

and published

indicators 1-5 completed and 6 and 9

partially completed

Annex Ac2 2…24 and Ac2 27 as a

combined presentation.

31.10.2011 M Nine demonstrations

established on five

locations by

1.10.2011.

2nd summer demonstrations founded and

published,

Annex Ac2 7; indicators 6-9

For all demonstrations: Annexes Ac2

8…24 of the specifications of

demonstrations and Ac2 27 as a

combined presentation.

31.10.2012 M Ten demonstrations

established by

1.10.2012 on and nine

in 2012 and one in

2013. Report of each

demonstration on

website and Annex

Ac5 54

Action 2 DEMO established 20 demonstration sites on eight locations (Jokioinen, Lepaa, Pori,

Jyväskylä, Hämeenlinna, Forssa, Espoo, Ylistaro). In addition, pot trials were carried out at

MTT Jokioinen. The demonstration sites served as a possibility to promote use of recycled

materials in landscaping and produced data for the LCA calculation. The process on planning

and carry out the demonstration served also as a good mean for dissemination of the project

objectives and results to stakeholders. After the call for potential collaborators (1. Indicator of

progress) the project team decided that best way to carry out is to focus on the most potential

partners who could take demonstration plots in their cities. Information of demonstration

activity and inquiry on collaboration possibility was sent to them in November 2010 (Annex

Ac2 1) as an example of an inquiry sent to cities Helsinki, Jyväskylä, Forssa, Oulu, Joensuu).

Discussion continued e.g. at the Viherpäivät in February 2011which is the main winter fair for

landscaping professionals (Annex Ac2 2). Also a study an amenity area acrerage in target

areas and in Finland in general was produced for project’s use (Annex Ac2 26) by collecting

data from e.g. towns’s amenity areas and sporting sites, golf courses, landfill sites, road side

areas.


17

Fig 1. Planning a demonstration

site in Pori in 2011.

Fig 2. Planning a site in

Jyväskylä in 2011.

Fig 3. Discussing suitable sites

in Forssa with VIHER Mikko

Jaakkola and city gardener

Leila Grönholm in 2011.

Fig 4. Checking the “Punaportin

puisto” for demonstration site in

Hämeenlinna.

Fig 5. Visiting Exhibition park

Marketanpuisto in Espoo for

exhibition possibility.

Fig 6. Studying suitable

demonstration site in Jokioinen

in 2011.

The project made contacts to potential cities. Project team visited and discussed

demonstration possibilities at several cities (Annex Ac2 3 and Fig. 1-6) and planned the

demonstrations together with city gardeners and within the project team for beneficiaries own

sites (Annex Ac2 4). In 2011 ten demonstrations were established on five locations, and in

2012 nine new demonstrations were established, and one more in 2013 so the target of 20

demonstrations was achieved. Three new locations were introduced. The plan for project’s

first year demonstrations (Annex Ac2 6) was updated in summer 2011 from April to October

while the last demonstrations we established in late fall. An plan for generated for the

project’s second year demonstrations (Annex Ac2 7). Notice boards including information of

the project and of the special demonstration were erected to all demonstrations sites. In Lepaa

and Jokioinen three demonstrations were located at the same site so in those sites one Notice

board served these three demonstrations. A notice board was erected also at the pot trial site at

Jokioinen so 17 notice boards covered the all 20 demonstration sites and the pot trial

experiment area. Notice boards are presented in Annexes Ac5 2….13; Ac5 26; and Ac5

45...48.

In addition to city gardeners contacts to waste water treatment plants, biowaste collectors and

substrate producers was an vital part of demonstration planning process which involved the

stakeholders and increased dissemination of project activities (see Fig. 7-9).


18

Fig 7. Visiting HS Vesi Ltd

waste water treatment plant

and substrate production site

Fig 8. Visiting Envorbiotech

municipal biowaste composting

site

Fig 9. Discussing substrate

production process at HSY waste

water treatment plant.

Publication of establishment of the demonstrations took place at the demonstration sites when

establishment was carried out (Annexes Ac2 8…24).

Demonstration activity operated on wide area geographically as demonstrations were

established in Espoo in south Finland, and at Ylistaro and Jyväskylä in Middle of Finland, in

Pori in Western Finland, at Hämeenlinna which is between HAMK at Lepaa and MTT

Jokioinen. Forssa city site is located close to MTT Jokioinen.

Finland is a large country and the short growing season leads into a situation that most

landscaping activities are carried out in short time in whole country. This generated a situation

that project personnel was required at far-away places at a very short interval. This logistics

challenge was managed by using a wide time period for establishing the demos (using both

spring and autumn for establishment which is normal in Finland) and using years 2012 and

also 2013 to establish the demonstrations. Short term personnel carried out most of the field

activities in summer to provide capacity in this labour intensive action.

Fig 10. Location of the established

demonstration sites in Finland. One or more

demonstrations were established on all sites

except in Joensuu where tentatively planned

demonstration work did not proceed.


19

Good collaboration was established to the stakeholders in substrate production and the

materials for demonstrations have been obtained from Envor Biotech, HS Vesi Oy, Kekkilä

Oy and HSY. A workshop was arranged 1.2.2012 for this stakeholder group to plan activities.

Invitation to the workshop was send to growing media producers. Invitation letter and photos

of the workshop are presented in Annex Ac2 4). MTT’s regional research station at Ylistaro

North West Finland was used with their local stakeholder (substrate producer company)

connections.

In the following table the demonstration sites are listed and their main purpose and value for

the project is specified. In the Annex Ac2_27 the 20 demonstrations are presented by a power

point presentation with photos and specification of the main purpose of the demonstration.

Table 1. List of established demonstration sites and their main purpose and value for the project.

Number Community

/establishm

ent year

Demo Purpose Main value for the

project

1 Jokioinen

2011

Lawn

establishment &

maintenance

(Annex Ac2_9)

Demonstrate use of recycled

materials in growing media

& effect of seed mixtures

Measurement data

for calculations

Promoting use of

recycled materials

2 Jokioinen

2011

Meadow

management

(Annex Ac2_10)

Effect of use recycled

materials in meadow

production

Biodiversity

assessment

3 Jokioinen

2011

Noise wall

management

(Annex Ac2_10)

Demonstrate use of

composted material at noise

wall

Promoting use of

recycled materials

4 Jokioinen

2012

Sod turf

productions

(Annex Ac2_23)


materials for sod turf

production

Promoting use of

recycled materials

5 LEPAA

2011

Lawn

establishment&

maintenance

(Annex Ac2_8)




Measurement data

for calculations;

Dissemination

6 LEPAA

2011

Meadow

establishment

(Annex Ac2_8)

Effect of use recycled

materials in meadow

production

Promoting

biodiversity

Dissemination

7 LEPAA

2012

Green roof demo

(Annex Ac2_21)

Demonstration use of

growing media with recycled

materials as a growing media

for green roofs

Promoting used of

recycled materials

Dissemination

8 LEPAA

2012

Lawn maintenance

(Annex Ac2_22)

Showing use of recycled

materials in lawn renovation

& maintenance

Measurement data

for calculations;

Promotion

9 LEPAA

2012

Lawn

establishment &

species

(Annex Ac2_20)




Measurement data

for calculations;

Dissemination

10 Pori 2011

Kirjurinlu

oto

Lawn

establishment,

Arena


materials in high level site

Promoting use of

recycled materials


20

(Annex Ac2_12)

11 Pori 2011

Kirjurinlu

oto

Meadow

establishment,

Leirintäalue

(Annex Ac2_11)

Demonstrate economic use of

recycled materials for lawn

establishment

Promoting recycled

materials and

Biodiversity

12 Pori 2012

Lotskeri

Lawn

establishment &

maintenance

(Annex Ac2_18)

Demonstrate seed mixtures


materials in lawn

management

Promoting recycled

materials and testing

plant material

13 Jyväskylä

2011

Lutakko

Lawn

establishment

(Annex Ac2_13)


material in a high quality site

Promoting use of

recycled materials at

prime city center

location

14 Jyväskylä

2011

Meadow

management

(Annex Ac2_14)

Effect of recycled materials

for meadow maintenance

Promoting use of

recycled materials

15 Hämeenlin

na

2011

Punaportti

Lawn

establishment

(Annex Ac2_15)

Growth media and seed

mixtures

Promoting use of

recycled materials

16 Hämeenlin

na

2012

Loimalahd

entie

Lawn

establishment at the

roadside

(Annex Ac2_19)

Growth media with recycled

materials and slow growing

seed mixture

Promoting and data

production

Dissemination

17 Forssa

2012

Lawn

establishment &

maintenance

(Annex Ac2_16)

Growth media, seed mixture,

sod turf utilization

Promoting

Data production

Dissemination

18 Espoo

2012

Lawn

establishment with

seed and sod turf

(Annex Ac2_17)

Recycled materials and sod

turf & seed establishment

Promoting use of

recycled materials

Dissemination

19 Ylistaro

2012

Sod turf production

(Annex Ac2_23)

Used of recycled materials in

sod turf production

Promoting use of

recycled materials

Dissemination

20 Ylistaro

2013

Sod turf production

of a flower

meadow

(Annex Ac5_48)

Sod turfs from the Pori

meadow demonstration were

transplanted to Ylistaro

Promoting

biodiversity

Notice boards were erected to exhibit the project activities and to provide special information

of the demonstration at the site (See Fig. 11). Additional information was available at the

website.


21

Fig 11. Notice boards informed

of the project in general and of

the demonstration in particular.

Fig 12. Winter time was quit at

the demonstration sites in

Finland and dissemination

focused on seminars in winter

time.

Fig 13. Demonstrations were

utilized for promotion purposes

on use of recycled materials and

in gaining experiences of their

use.

Fig 14. Observations underway

at the establishment phase of a

demonstration in Lepaa.

Fig 16. Biodiversity observations

underway at a meadow

demonstration in Pori.

Establishing the Vaskipuisto demonstration in Forssa on 22.5.2012 was utilised as one

occasion for the LIFE20 Anniversary celebrations activities (Annex Ac5 20).

Supplies were purchased for the project to manage establishment and management of the

demonstrations, for mowing the demonstrations and an irrigation system for sod-turf

production as well as a sod-turf lifting unit to facilitate sod turf production process. The

project started to demonstrate sod turf production using recycled materials at MTT Jokioinen

and at Ylistaro. Life Logos were attached to the purchased equipment (trailer for

transportation, sod –turf lifting device and irrigation equipment (Annex Ac6 4).

In addition to demonstrations pot trials were carried out at MTT Jokioinen in order to obtain

data on nutrient leaching and on GHG emissions (Annex Ac2 25 and Fig. 17-19). Data of

demonstration activity has been compiled and results were presented in the presentations at

the work shop 1.2.2012 and at the Mid-Term seminar 17.8.2012 and in the Final Seminar

9.12.2014 and in several other workshops. Each demonstration is described and key

experiences are presented in the Reports by locations (Annex Ac2 27). The report of

demonstration results and experiences summarizes the key results obtained in the

demonstrations (Annex Ac2 28).

The environmental risk assessment on establishment and maintenance phase raised attention

to possibility of high nutrient contents in substrates leading to possibility of nutrient leaching

particularly at establishment phase (Annex Ac2_29). This should be taken into account

particularly at establishment sites close to waterways. Lawn establishments on slopes are

vulnerable to soil erosion if heavy rainfall occurs before proper lawn establishment. The risk

of soil erosion could be alleviated by establishing the slope sites with sod-turf.

Fig 15. Measurements underway

how seed mixture and substrate

effect the growth of grass in

Jokioinen.


22

Data from the demonstrations and pot trials provide also After Life communication

possibilities e.g. for students to carry out their thesis work and material to write articles of the

topic. In addition, the treatments at the demonstration sites are located by an accurate gps-

system and the plots can be utilized later on in follow up study to see how seed mixtures

perform on the different substrates on long term e.g. in 10 year time.

Fig 17. Main focus was on

demonstrating lawn area

establishment and maintenance

for park and home garden

lawns. Lepaa demosite in 2013.

Fig 19. Also meadow

demonstrations were exhibited

and biodiversity was assessed

in the demos. Jokioinen

meadow demo.

Main conclusion was that high quality lawn was achieved by using recycled materials. In the

establishment of demonstration sites we did not observe problems with neighbours in using

recycled material. Use of recycled material substrates did not cause problems at application

even at the city centre sites. Odour was not a problem. Pot trials indicated that the

establishment phase possess the highest risks from nutrient leaching and dinitrogen oxide

emissions from GHG point of view.

Fig 20. Green ground cover percentage at Jokioinen lawn demonstration as average

value for different years and seed mixtures combined. All substrates produced lawns

of high quality. Results are presented in Annex Ac2 28.

Fig 18. Pot trials produced

data of those issues in which

data is lacking for LCA

assessment like GHG

emissions. In addition data

was collected from nutrient

leaching.


23

Report of performance and of management procedures carried out at experimental sites was

compiled (Annex Ac2 28) which showed that the recycled materials in the lawn establishment

and maintenance served well and provided as end result a lawn area of the same level as the

lawn area produced by conventional products.

A report was produced concerning obtained data in updating the process descriptions

produced Action 1 (Annex Ac2 30).

Demonstration days on demonstration sites were arranged at establishment of the sites

particularly at Lepaa and at Vaskipuisto Forssa and are listed in Dissemination actions

chapter.

Annual Lepaa fairs in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 served as excellent occasions to exhibit the

demonstrations at Lepaa and informed about the project results in general. In addition,

Marketanpuisto Exhibition park site was exhibited during the VIHERTEK exhibitions and

individual demonstration sites were shown and presented to visitors and in Ylistaro the

traditional research station exhibition days was used to exhibit the sod-turf production.


24

4.1.3 Action 3 LCA tools

Name of the Deliverable or Milestone Deadline Category Status

LCA tool for waste-derived substrates green

surfaces produced (Annex Ac3 2 in Finnish

and Ac3 3 in English)

31.8.2013 D Completed.

LCA tool published (first version)

indicator 1 completed (Annex Ac3 1a and 1b)

31.8.2012 M See ure 1 and

(Annex Ac3 1).

LCA tool summarised

indicators 2-5

30.09.201

3

M Completed for 5

indicators.

In construction of the LCA tools the designer of the model – Frans Silvenius - collaborated

with Action 1 Specifications, Action 2 Demo and Action 4 Cost-benefit analysis to facilitate

collection and production of data for the LCA calculations. Application of LCA assessment

to landscaping is a new approach and required a considerable development effort.

The first version of LCA tool (Annex Ac3 1). was produced in 2012 and the final version of

LCA tool was completed in autumn 2014 (Annex Ac3 2 and 3) and both Finnish and English

versions are on the project website.

The construction of the LCA tool consisted of calculation of environmental loads and impacts

of substrate production process and establishment and maintenance of lawn areas. The LCA

tool is excel-based tool. The input data page consist of different parameters like area of the

investigated lawn, amounts of peat and compost in substrate, nutrient contents of compost,

transportation distances, annual lawn mowing density etc. Indicators of sustainability used in

the tool are climate impact, eutrophication, acidification and primary energy use. Biodiversity

is not part in the LCA tool but it was assessed as number of plant species in the meadow

demos. Water footprint did not have agreed methodology and it was not covered by LCA tool.

The results, which the tool calculates, are divided in process units and process units are

combined to five areas: 1) Substrate production part, 2) transportation part, 3) establishment

part, 4) part of lime and fertilizers, and 5) maintenance part. The results of the areas are

divided further to production of peat, and mineral soils, emissions of composting,

establishment of lawn (earth moving, site preparation, spreading the substrate, soil tillage,

sowing and rolling, fertilizing and liming) and maintenance process of the lawn, especially

mowing and dinitrogen monoxide and ammonia emissions during lawn maintenance period.


25

Also environmental impacts of fertilizer production, lime production and the emissions

caused by decomposing of lime and fertilizers are shown separately in the LCA tool. The

system boundaries of the investigation are in line with previous LCA-studies of waste

management, which have been often “from-gate-to-crave”- or “from-gate-to cradle”-studies

(Blengini 2008). The impact classes in calculation tool are climate change, aquatic

eutrophication, acidification and primary energy and the tool was tested with four pilot

substrates and one substrate scenario, which have different amounts of different organic

materials (biosludge-based compost, biowaste-based compost, and peat) and different nutrient

contents.

Fig 21. Process flow chart of LCA which worked also for the Cost-benefit study: sources of

environmental and economic costs of the green cover process.


26

Table 2. The input data page (with example values) of LCA-tool. On each row there is possible to put

different values to different parameters shown.

Acreage of lawn area, ha 1

Thickness of substrate layer, cm 20

Density of substrate, kg/dm3 1

Compost content in substrate, volume-% 50

Peat content in substrate, volume-% 10

Mineal soil content in substrate, volume-% 40

Density of compost, kg/dm3 0,5

Total nitrogen content in compost, kg/m3 8

Peat amount in composting adhesive material, volume-% 30

Total phosphorous content in compost, kg/m3 4

Use of electricity in composting, kWh/t 10

Fuel consumption of equipment in composting, l/t 2

Transportation distance of peat, km 20

Tranportation distance of compost, km 5

Transportation distance of mineral soil; km 20

Tranportation distance of substrate to utilization siten, km 50

Lawn establishment: levelling of subsrate at site, ha 1

Lawn establishment: seed bed preparation tillage, ha 1

Number of lawn mowings in a year 15

Lenght of study period, vuotta 20

Ammonium-nitrogen content in substrate, mg/l 2000

Amount of nitrogen applied by fertilizers, kg/study period /ha 30

Amount of phosphorous applied in fertilizers, kg/study period /ha 20

Amount of fertilizer potassium, kg/study period /ha 40

Maintenance liming, kg/ha/year 400

Establishment liming, kg/ha (/vuosi (only once)) 2000

By using the LCA-tool it is possible to calculate the changes in carbon footprint and

acidifying emissions of the substrate production, when the nitrogen content and dry matter of

the content and amounts of the peat, wood chips or other raw materials in substrate and in

composting are changed. The numbers for the variables are from literature concerning

dinitrogen oxide emissions and nutrient leaches. It has to be taken into account that there are

large variation in GHG emissions of composting sludge and biowaste.

Experiments were carried out on fuel consumption of both professional large lawn mower and

a smaller medium size garden mower. Other experiments were made for the whole growing

season in HAMK area. Master’s thesis (Annex Ac3 4) for fuel consumption and carbon

footprint of lawn mowing was produced. In the Master’s thesis several variables on fuel

consumption of lawn mowing was studied. Carbon footprint of lawn mowing was compared

to other functions like dinitrogen monoxide emissions and use of lime on lawn areas.

Naturally fuel consumption of lawn areas can be reduced significantly, if mowing is done less

frequently. That can be achieved by using slowly growing grass mixture. No significant

correlation was observed for fuel consumption and length of the mown grass. Use of lime can

play very significant role in the carbon footprint of maintenance of lawn areas. Special feature

in lawn mowing experiments was to use GPS-equipment to measure the actual driving

distance of the mower. That facilitated study of idle mowing (idle mowing=already mowed

area is cut again). The percentage of idle mowing (Annex Ac5 25) ranged from 25 and to 88


27

percent of the actual park acreage. Field experiments gave higher fuel consumption values

than expert interviews and literature reviews. In addition fuel consumption measurements

were carried out concerning the spreading of the substrate and seed bed preparation. It is

difficult to obtain accurate data of fuel consumption of the lawn establishment from the

manufacturers of the machines because the fuel consumption varies in relation to working

circumstances. The work was done by VIHER at actual landscaping site. The results were

utilizable for calculations by the LCA tool.

The GHG emissions of soil contribute to carbon footprint according to the literature and they

were measured in pot trials and field demos. Pot trials measured also nutrient leaching of the

lawn areas (Annex Ac2 28). The measurement gave support to results of previous study of

MTT and Finnish Environment Institute (Kangas & Salo 2010).

Literature review about life cycle assessments of landscaping, peat production and

composting was carried out. One LCA-investigation was found on carbon footprint of urban

green space (Strohbach et. al 2012). The area, however, was different from our study, because

the area contained also trees.

Fig 23. Fuel consumption

measurement underway of seed

bed preparation tillage.

The following critical values were observed: peat production and degradation are very

important emission source for GHG and nutrient emissions to water systems, composting is

very important emission source of GHG and ammonia, but emissions vary significantly.

Main problem in the LCA tool was that values in studies on GHG in composting vary a lot. It

has to be taken into account that in Finnish circumstances biowaste and sludge are composted

in every case, so the emissions occur also when peat is used instead of them in substrate. The

tool takes also into account the influence of possible ammonia recovery in composting, which

can be upto 95 %.

The tool was tested by using four pilot substrates, which had different contents of peat,

compost, mineral soils and nutrients. The contents of the pilot substrates are shown in Table

2. The contents of compost in substrates 1 and 5 are higher in relation to contents of mineral

soils compared to other substrates. In the study a 20 cm thick growing substrate layer is used

which means 2000 m3 and around 2000 tons of substrates for one hectare lawn area.

Fig 22. Measuring fuel

consumption in substrate

levelling.

Fig 24. Fuel consumption on

lawn mowing was carried out

with various machinery and on

various types of lawns.


28

Table 3. Contents of the pilot substrates in mass-%:s

Compost, % Peat, % Mineral soils, %

Substrate 1 55 45

Substrate 2 40 60

Substrate 3 9 21 70

Substrate 4 22 78

Substrate 5 55 45

One difference between pilot substrates is in their composting process: some use peat as

adhesive material and some use woodchips (Table 3). The adhesive materials has effect when

the climate impact is counted: carbon dioxide from peat degradation is fossil and carbon

dioxide from woodchips is biogenic.

Table 4. Raw materials of compost in pilot substrates, volume-%.(Note: no compost is substrate 4).

Sludge, % Biowaste, % Peat, % Woodchips %

Substrate 1* 80 20

Substrate 2 80 20

Substrate 3 38 62

Substrate 5 80 20

*mass %:s

Densities of substrates 1 and 3 were 1000 kg/m3

and substrate 2 1200 kg/m3. Taken into

account the peat content of substrate and peat in adhesive material and the thickness of

substrate 20 cm in lawn areas the amount of peat per square meter of lawn is shown in table 4.

Table 5. Peat amounts used in relation to square meter of lawn of pilot substrates.

Peat, kg/m2

Substrate 1 27,5

Substrate 2 26,2

Substrate 3 47,2

Substrate 4 41

Substrate 5 0

Contents of compost have effects on emissions of the life cycle of lawn areas. Nitrogen

content of compost has effects on GHG and ammonia emissions of composting and nitrogen

and phosphorus content on nutrient emissions causing eutrophication. The nutrient contents of

compost are shown in Table 5. Most essential characteristics of compost are high nitrogen and

phosphorus contents of compost 3 and low phosphorus content of compost 2. Because of the

high nutrient contents peat is added to substrate 3.

Table 6. Properties of compost in pilot-cases. (Substrate 4 has no compost).

Densities,

kg/m3

Tot-N kg/m3 Soluble N, kg/m

3 Tot-P, kg/m

3 Soluble P, kg/m

3

Compost 1 550 4,4 1,2 4 0,05

Compost 2 514 4 0,36 0,76 0,03

Compost 3 430 7 0,995 8,2 0,039

Compost 5 550 4,4 1,2 4 0,05

In this study values presented by Boldrin et al (2010) were used for nitrogen-loss of

composting and dinitrogen monoxide and ammonia emissions. No biofilters or other gas

removing technology of composting was used in the pilot-cases. For nitrogen-loss it was

assumed that 50 % of the nitrogen evaporates (Boldrin et al 2010), but it has also been

claimed that in some cases only 25 % of nitrogen evaporates (Lehto 2005, EASEWASTE


29

2007). Concerning nitrogen and phosphorus leaches values of previous Finnish investigation

were used (Kangas & Salo 2010) and the experiences from our own pot trials supported their

results. The fuel consumption of lawn establishment and lawn mowing were based on own

field experiments (5 l/ha). It was assumed that peat degradation level is 86 % of the carbon

content of peat (Karhu et al. 2012). Methane emissions can vary a lot too, IPCC values are 4

g/kg waste, but EASEWASTE (2007) results only 0,97 g/kg waste. In this study it was

assumed that methane emission is 1,96 g in relation to one kg sludge or biowaste.

From 15 to 20 lawn mowing operations are needed in growing season in Finnish conditions.

Fuel consumption of earth moving, site preparation, spreading the substrate, soil tillage and

sowing were based on field experiments, which were made with landscaping enterprise

beneficiary VIHER. The fuel consumption of earth moving and spreading the substrate were

86 litres/ha and soil tillage and sowing 42-66 l/ha depending on demand of tillage required for

seed bed preparation. For compost-based substrates additional fertilizing application was not

assumed to be needed for first 10 year, but only the following 10 years. The amounts of

fertilizers application was set to 200 kg/ha NPK 9-3-12 in every spring and 200 kg/ha NK 4-

17 in autumn.

Table 7. Parameter values used in the LCA calculations.

Substrates Unit Source

Peat degradation 86 % of C in peat Karhu et al. 2012

N-loss in composting 50 % of total N in sewage

sludge or biowaste

Boldrin et al 2010

N2O-N-emissions of

composting

1.5 % of N-loss in

composting

Boldrin et al 2010

CH4-emisions of

composting

1.96 g/kg biowaste or

sewage sludge

IPCC 2006,

EASEWASTE 2007

NH3-N-emissions of

composting

2 % of N-loss in

composting

Boldrin et al 2010

Establishment of lawn

areas

Thickness of substrate 20 cm Paalijärvi et al. 2015.

Fuel consumption of earth

moving and spreading the

substrate

86 l/ha Field experiments

Fuel consumption of soil

tillage and sowing


Maintenance of lawn

areas

Fuel consumption of

mowing


Fertilizer application,

spring

NPK 9-3-12 200 kg/ha Estimation of project

group

Fertilizer application,

autumn

NK 4-17 200 kg/ha Estimation of project

group

Lawn without additional

fertilization for compost-

based substrates

10 years Estimation of project

group

N-leach 13 % of N input Kangas & Salo 2010

P-leach 5 % of P-input Kangas & Salo 2010


30

Results of the environment impacts calculated by the LCA tool are presented in the following

figures.

Climate impact

Figure 25 shows that the most essential greenhouse gas emissions come from peat

degradation. The highest emissions are when using substrate 3 because of the highest peat

amounts and the highest nitrogen contents in composting The part of peat degradation when

using substrate 3 was 65 % and using substrate 4 82 %. Climate impact is significantly lower

when substrate 5 is used, which does not have peat at all. The significance of machinery use

in mowing and lawn establishment was very low. The greenhouse gas emissions in lawn

maintenance mean N2O emissions from nitrogen content of the substrate. The part of compost

was 38 % in substrate 1, which has 55 % compost in final substrate products and 69 % when

using substrate 5, which does not have peat at all. The significance of dinitrogen monoxide

emissions (GHG emissions of maintenance in the picture 25) can be essential if the contents

of compost and nitrogen content of it are high as in substrates 1 (12 %) and 5 (29 %).

Fig 25. Climate impact (kg CO2-eq/m2 lawn) of the life cycle of lawn areas using different pilot

substrates. Study period 20 years.

Eutrophication impact

In eutrophication impact the most essential points are amounts of compost in substrate and

nutrient contents of compost (Figure 26). Substrates of 1 and 5 have 55 % compost and the

eutrophication impact is over seven times higher than with substrate 4, which does not contain

compost at all. Substrate 3 has higher eutrophication impact because of high nutrient content

of compost, when substrate 2 has contradictory especially low phosphorus content in

compost.


31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Substrate 1, Compost 55 %

Substrate, Compost 40 %



Substrate 5, Compost 55%

Fig 26. Eutrophication impact (gPO4-eq/m2 lawn area) of the life cycle of lawn areas using differen

pilot substrates.

Acidification impact

The acidification impact is dependent in compost content of substrate (Figure 27). The main

component is ammonia, which comes from composting and when substrate is spread into

lawn area. According to Boldrin et al. (2010) the ammonia recovery is possible in composting

and can recover up to 95 % of ammonia. The high acidification impact of substrate 3 is

because of high nitrogen content of compost. The acidification impact of substrates 1 and 5

are the highest because of high compost content in substrate and the acidification impact of

substrate 4 is the lowest because no compost was used.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20





Substrate 5, Compost 55%

Fig 27. Acidification impact (gAE/m2 lawn area) of the life cycle of lawn areas using different pilot

substrates.


32

Use of primary energy

When looking at primary energy use the most essential part is peat production (Figure 28).

The highest emissions are when using substrate 3 because of the highest peat amounts. The

part of peat production is in the substrate 3 69 % and substrate 4 72 %. The significantly

lowest impact is when substrate 5 is used, which doesn’t use peat at all. The significance of

mowing and transports are higher than in other impact classes, 13 at lowest and 15 % when

using substrate 5, which does not have peat at all. Also composting operations use primary

energy, as visible in substrate 5. The significance of composting was very low in substrate 3,

7 %, but 51 %, when using substrate 5.

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

Transports

Mowing

Lawn establishment

Peat

Electricity, composting

Diesel, composting

Fig 28. Primary energy use (MJ/ha lawn area) of the life cycle of lawn areas using different pilot

substrates. Study period 20 years. Thickness of substrate layer 20 cm.

Conclusions and application possibilities of LCA tool

The LCA study identified the spots of knowledge gaps. GHG emissions of composting vary a

lot. Very useful information would be data, where the greenhouse gas emissions on studied

compost have been measured in different circumstances. It is known that aeration solutions

have strong effect on greenhouse gases. In this project we had data from one measurements of

one compost plant and according to these results dinitrogen monoxide emission were higher

and methane emissions much lower that IPCC values.

The fuel consumption of mowing was found to be not so important compared to the

significance of production and use of substrate. In the investigation was high variation in fuel

consumption in average values in different measurements from 4 l/ha to 10 l/ha.

The results indicate that the environmental impacts of lawn area establishment and

maintenance concentrate strongly to production and properties of substrate and concerning

climate impact on peat degradation and partly on composting. The significance of mowing

was remarkable only in impact category of primary energy use, where it was 10-25 %, despite

the fact that 20 mowing times per season was done in 20-year period. Also the significance of

lime production, fertilizer production and lawn establishment were very low.


33

The tool can be used when designing substrate formulation to study the differences between

different raw material alternatives in substrate to optimize the environmental impacts of the

substrate production. On the other hand the tool does not take into account for example the

reduction potential in greenhouse gas emissions in composting, when the different aeration

technology would be used. Lawn mowing does not have very strong part on environmental

impacts of the whole life-cycle of landscaping, but increased frequency of mowing leads to

higher maintenance costs of lawn areas. Local conditions in calculation of eutrophication

impact are not taken into account in the tool. The tool can be considered to be a starting

point, when investigating and optimizing environmental impacts of landscaping. The tool can

be used to compare the environment impact of changes in lawn maintenance procedures e.g.

choice between artificial vs. recycled fertilizer products and/or lawn seed mixtures of different

mowing demand.



4.1.4 Action 4 Cost-benefit Analysis

Name of the Deliverable or Milestone or

Report

Deadline Catego

ry Status

Cost-benefit report on use of waste to

waste-derived green surfaces. Annex Ac4 1

(1st version) and Final at Annex4 4.

31.12.2013

-30.9.2014

D Completed

Cost-benefit analysis,

progress indicator 1 (Annex Ac4 2).

30.6.2012 M The cost-benefit

analysis of the

construction and

maintenance of

lawns by traditional

and the method

using recyclable

material 30.6.2012.

Cost-benefit analysis published; indicators 2

and 3

31.12.2013

30.9.2014

M Completed

The cost-benefit analysis action collaborated with the other actions to secure the data

production to lead to information which can be utilised in the Action 4 a) in economical

analysis, b) in environmental cost analyses, and c) in societal cost analyses.

Transfer of responsibility in this Action 4 from AGROP to MTT occurred in 2012 when the

first indicator (1, Cost-benefit analysis) was reached by 30.6.2012, just before the withdrawal

of AGROP (Agropolis Ltd).

Collection of basic data for cost-benefit analysis and socio-economical analysis was

important. The cost-benefit analysis of the construction and maintenance of lawns between

the traditional method and the method using recyclable material (Annex Ac4 1 as the draft

version) was produced on the information given by the constructors, landscaping companies

and beneficiary VIHER (Viherrakenne Jaakkola Ltd.). In addition, necessary information of

the supplies (substrates, fertilizers and seed-mixtures) was given by VIHER and the

companies collaborating with the project. Data collecting together with Action 3 proceeded

from the waste water treatment plants, biogas production and composting plants of Envor, HS

Vesi and HSY and Kekkilä which has specialized in substrate production. The unit used in

the analysis was 1 m2. The final Cost-benefit report was completed at the end of the project

(Annex Ac4 4) and the main results are presented on the following tables and pages.

The following reports of the work were produced in addition to the final Cost-benefit report

(Annex Ac4_4): Description of the processes to use biogas digestate for compost and

specifying different composting and alternative treatments (Annex Ac4 2). Case study:

Kekkilä – impact of use for various kind of recycled materials in growing media production

(Annex Ac4 3).


35

Fig 30. Project team discussing

lawn mowing machinery

capacity at Kesko company.

Fig 31. Some recycled products

are available also for lawn

maintenance purposes like these

pellets.

Table 8. Economical impact between recycled used materials and conventional materials in lawn area

establishment and maintenance.

Cost comparison Traditional lawn

construction

Lawn construction utilizing

recycled materials

A. Planning expenses h/m2 Cost €/m

2 h/m

2 Cost €/m

2

– direct labour cost: 36.00 €/h

(including sidecosts, without VAT)

0,03

1,08

0,03

1,08

– Overhead cost 40 % 0,43 0,43

Total 1,51 1,51

B. Establishment expenses Traditional lawn

construction

Lawn construction utilizing

recycled materials

– material expenses €/m3 m

3/m

2 €/m

2 €/m

3 m

3/m

2 €/m

2

– substrate (including VAT) 26,50 0,2 5,30 19,50 0,2 3,90

– seed mixture 5,00 0,028 0,14 5,00 0,028 0,14

– direct labour expenses

(inculding side costs, without

VAT)

h/m2

Expenses €/m2

h/m2

Expenses €/m2

– human labour 31,00 €/h (including

side costs; wihtout VAT)

0,010

0,31

0,010

0,31

– machine work 62,00 €/h (including

side costs, without VAT)

0,010

0,62

0,010

0,62

– Overhead costs 20 % 1,27 0,99

Total 7,64 5,96

A + B Planning and

establishment costs in total

9,15

7,47

Fig 29. Data collection in cost-

benefit included discussions

and visits e.g. to substrater

producers (Visit to Envor

Biotech).


36

C. Maintenance costs € for 10

year period from establishment

Traditional lawn

establishment

Establishment utilizing

recycled materials

– Material expenses €/m3 kg/m

2 €/m

2 €/m

3 kg/m

2 €/m

2

Spring and summer fertilizer 2,00 0,025 0,05

– Autumn fertilizer 2,00 0,025 0,05 2,00 0,025 0,05

– Direct labour costs, years 1 –

3 from establishment

times/year

h/m2

€/m2

times/year

h/m2

€/m2

– man & machine work 42,00

€/h (including side costs,

without VAT)

20 0,001 0,84 23 0,001 0,97

– Direct labour costs, years 4 –

10 from establishment

– man & machine work 42,00 €/h

(including side costs, without VAT)

20

0,001

0,84

20

0,001

0,84

– material and direct labourcosts

(mean for 10 years from establishment)

0,94

0,96

– transportation costs 0,20 0,20

– Overhead costs 12 % 0,14 0,14

In total 1,28 1,30

A + B + C Planning,

establishment and 10 year

maintenance costs in total

10,43

8,77

The results of economical cost benefit study showed:

a) There were no difference between in the planning costs in both methods; in both cases

the costs were 1,51 €/m2

b) Difference arise in construction costs: the costs in the method using

recycled materials in substrate were 5.96 €/m2

compared to 7.64 €/m2 of the traditional

method. The reason for that was the lower price of the growing media made from

recyclable materials.

c) There were no significant differences in annual maintenance costs between two

methods, calculated for 10 years after construction of lawn: the costs in the method

using recyclable materials was 1,30 €/m2/yea

compared by 1.28 €/m

2/year of the

traditional method. The use of biodegradable waste materials decreased fertilizing

costs, because of the increased biological activity in growing media for about three

years after establishment. However, labour costs are higher during those three first

years, because the lawn has to be mown 23 times per growing period compared by 20

times in the case where traditional method is used.

Using recycled materials in lawn area establishment and first 10 year maintenance period

resulted in 16 percent lower costs than using peat based substrates when substrate layer

was 20 cm thick as the guidelines for lawns specify.

Particularly in environmental cost benefit study Action 4 collaborated closely with Action 3

as these two actions were deeply interwoven. The fuel consumption studies, greenhouse gas

and nutrients leaching measurements made in Action 3 were therefore part of the realization

of Action 4 too and gave data needed in cost-benefit analysis of establishment and

maintenance of lawn areas. A Master’s Thesis about environmental and cost-benefit analysis

of substrate production processes (Annex Ac4_3) was done. In the thesis the costs of


37

environmental impacts were calculated using integrated cost-benefit analysis and Life-Cycle

Assessment. The analysis was done between traditional substrates, which are made using peat

and substrates from biodegradable wastes. The comparison was made by calculating carbon

footprint for different substrate products and impact. The carbon footprints of these products

were calculated to be between 39 and 62 kg CO2-ekv per ton of product and it was lower for

waste-derived products. In addition, the impacts of composting process to water systems are

negligible compared to those in peat excavation. The valuation of the benefits and losses was

performed by using current prices, statistics and reports. The cost-benefit analysis concluded

that the total environmental costs of peat-based products are higher than those using

biodegradable wastes.

For social impacts of substrate production processes a semi-quantitative method was used to

compare the main two processes (composting versus peat extraction) in terms of employment,

particulates emissions, odour, noise, health hazards and acceptability. The social impact

assessment indicated that the impacts were more positive for products using waste-based

processes. The thesis covered one part of whole process of the landscaping that is shown on a

process flow chart as shown in Action 3 in Figure x.

The economical analysis was updated by price information and supplemented detailed

information from the constructors to completed cost-benefit analysis in 2014 (Annex Ac4_x).

The main info was that there are not significant differences in establishment of lawns between

traditional and waste-based substrates but differences are caused by lower price of the

substrate made of recyclable materials which promotes the use of recycled materials.

Assessing the social impacts was challenging due to lack of standardized methodology and

also because some of needed processes take place in different areas, for example peat

extraction and composting of biodegradable waste. But use of semi-quantitative method,

where numerical values are given to different terms, makes the comparison possible and gives

usable outcome as shown below. Substrates having compost had better acceptability than

substrates including peat. Also effect on employment gave substrates with compost advantage

(Fig. ). Odour was the only characteristics which in this study gave substrates with compost

lower values in social comparison to substrates with peat.

Fig 32. The social comparison in the cost benefit study of substrate production processes comparing

substrates utilizing peat (as traditional one) and compost as recycled material example.

The social comparison of whole landscaping process was completed in December 2014 as

part of the final Cost-benefit report (Annex Ac4_4).


38

4.1.5 Action 7 Monitoring

Name of the Deliverable or Milestone or Report Deadline Category Status

Monitoring report delivered (Annex Ac7_6) 31.8.2014

31.12.2014

D Completed

MTT’s Quality Managers carried out internal monitoring of the project. They were

independent of the actual project activities. Quality Manager Mr. Pasi Voutilainen conducted

the monitoring action from 1st September 2010 to 31

st December 2010 and his follower Dr.

Pekka Manninen conducted the monitoring action to the end of the Project. The procedure of

internal monitoring was agreed with the Management Board. Monitoring took place by

attending in the project team meetings and included interviews of liable project members and

document audits. Findings, proposals for improving some practices or for other corrective

actions, were presented and discussed in the Management board meeting, in which the

monitor attended. Proposals were suggested to the project manager, whenever the monitor

saw it productive for the project. These proposals were also discussed in the Project team

meetings. The correspondence between activities and project plan was evaluated, and other

selected documentation was reviewed.

Necessary actions took place according to the recommendations given in “Preliminary self-

assessment report, 31st December 2010 (Annex Ac7 1), “Self-assessment report of the

viability of the project, 14th

April 2011 (Annex Ac7 2), and “1st Annual Report of

Effectiveness of the Project Actions (Annex Ac7 3), respectively, has been reviewed. 31.12.

2012 (Annex Ac7 4 and 31.12.2013 (Annex Ac7 5) and Final report on 31.12.2014 (Annex

Ac7_6). The reports were produced for project’s internal use.

The monitoring paid attention to issues such as:

- Project Manager’s and Financial Manager’s available time for the project from other

duties.

- Lack of deputies for project key persons such as Project Manager and Financial Manager.

- Documentation management such as internal project deliverables, which had inadequate

traceability, i.e. proper identification in terms of document naming, authors, date and

version.

- Risk management and task management.

- Procedures for ensuring adequate internal communication.

The Project Manager responded in adequate manner to the recommendations given by the

Internal Monitor. For example, following improvements have been implemented

- Project Manager’s and Financial Manager’s adequate time management for the project.

Nominating deputies for both Managers. Deputies were introduced in their tasks.

- The traceability of the project documentation was improved by adding adequate

identification data on each final document

- Plan for public communications was discussed and updated in each Project Team

meeting.

- Project timetable had regular check points and other risk management practices were

utilized.

The findings, recommendations and corrective actions taken place are described in more

details in self-assessment reports and in the Annual Reports of Effectiveness of the Project

Actions 2011, 2012, 2013 and in the Final Report of monitoring.


39

4.1.6 Action 8 After Life Communication Plan

A separate After Life Communication plan is attached in Finnish and English in Annex Ac8

1. To summarise it:

- Communication of project’s results and achievements will continue in the After

Life phase by articles and participation in seminars as feasible.

- Project website will provide one platform for After Life communication and it will

be actively updated.

- Certain conferences will be participated as the biannual Maataloustieteen Päivät

(Agricultural Science Days) at the University of Helsinki in January 2016.

- Layman’s report, posters and other publications, as well as photos of the

demonstrations will be utilised in the dissemination activities by the coordinating

beneficiary and associated partners at suitable events.

- The demonstration sites constructed during the project will be part of the cities

normal park area and maintained accordingly. The plots have been located by an

accurate geographical positioning system. This will allow to locate the place of the

treatments later on to make follow up measurements years after the project has

finished. The project period of four years is a very short time of the duration of

lawn areas and follow up after ten or fifteen years of establishment would be

highly valuable.

- Mr Mikko Jaakkola from beneficiary VIHER is chairman of the VYRA

Association which consists of 130 landscape entrepreneur companies in Finland.

He will play an important role to communicate the finding to the professional

landscaping experts in Finland.

- Dialog will continue with authorities to utilize LCA tool in assessing

environmental guidelines in substrate production and formulating regulations for

landscaping.

- Knowledge obtained will be incorporated into the curriculum of landscape studies

at HAMK and other landscaping programmes in Finland. Educational material was

produced by the project and is available at the website.

- LCA issues will be taken into account in Luke’s future research work.

Information and experience produced in this project will be utilized in the new

research projects.

- The project team is considering preparation of an application to the next LIFE call

to focus filling the identified knowledge gaps in this project (GHG emissions in

various composting methods and measures to mitigate them) in composting and in

substrate production and to apply the LCA tool to maintenance issues of lawn

duration particularly at intensively maintained lawn areas as golf courses and other

sports areas.


40

4.2 Dissemination actions

Name of the Deliverable, Milestone or

Report

Deadline Categor

y Status

A project website (Annex Ac5 1) 31.12.2010 D Operational on

29.1.2011.

Notice boards to demonstration sites

(up to 20) (seventeen which covered the all

20 demonstration sites

Annexes Ac5 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,

13, 26, 45, 46, 47 and 48.

30.7.2011,

30.7.2012

D In the MTR: 14

notice boards at 8

demonstration

locations for 18

demos reported.

All demos had

notice board info.

Brochures of project (three language version)

Annex Ac5 14, 15 and 16.

30.6.2011 D Completed 2011;

reported in MTR.

Articles for press (10)

Annex Ac5 17, 18, 19, 40, 41, 49, 22, 88, 89,

105, 106

30.8.2012;

20.8.2014

amended to

20.12.2014

D

Activity will

continue in After

Life phase.

Dissemination checkpoint**

5; indicators 1, 2

Annex Ac5 1 and Annex Ac5 88

30.6.2011 M Reported in MTR.

Website moved to

MTT server in

2013.

Mid-term seminar

indicators 2,4,5,6

Annex Ac5 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44

M Mid Term seminar

on 17.8.2012 in

conjuction to

Lepaa2012 Fair .

Reported in MTR.

Closing seminar and proceedings**,

; indicators 4, 5,6,7

Annex Ac5 50 including final seminar

programme, presentations and documentation

Annex Ac5 87 List of participants in the final

seminar

31.8.2014

amended to

30.11.2014.

D & M Arranged on

9.12.2014 at

HAMK in

Hämeenlinna.

Proceedings on

website.

Layman’s report published,

; indicator 3 Annex Ac5 51

30.9.2014

amended to

31.1.2015

D & M Delivered with the

Final Report.

Available at the

website.

4.2.1. Objectives

Main objective in dissemination work was to raise awareness of possibilities to utilize

recycled materials in landscaping and by that way break the attitudinal barriers still prevailing

among professionals in landscaping as well as among wide audience. In addition, by the LCA

tool results illustrate the good impact on environment of use of recycled materials in

landscaping and thereby promote recycling and use of waste. Key target groups for the


41

communication were the professionals on the landscaping field (city gardeners, substrate

producers and landscaping entrepreneurs).

Means in dissemination and communication

Collaboration with the target group occurred throughout the project duration in planning and

establishment of demonstrations as well as data collection of processes for LCA tool and cost-

benefit studies required close collaboration with the stakeholders. Dissemination activities

included prior to project start arranged info gathering for project partners and collaborators in

conjunction with the annual horticultural fairs at HAMK (Annex Ac5 0). Workshop for

substrate producers and city gardeners was arranged in 1.2.2012 (Annex Ac2 30, 31 and 43).

Project brochures were produced in Finnish, English and Swedish (Annex Ac5 14, 15 and 16).

Project web-site (www.lcainlandcaping.fi) (Annex Ac5 1) was opened 31.1.2011. The

website operation was transferred from VYL to MTT in spring 2013 when VYL withdrew

from the project operation (Annex Ac5 88). The website will be kept operational at Luke for

several years after the completion of the project.

In Action 2 Demonstrations notice boards and specifications at the demonstration sites served

one channel to provide information and more information was available at the web site.

Project arranged the Mid-Term seminar (Annex Ac5 32) and the Final seminars (Annex Ac5

50, 87) as well as certain specific demonstration and stakeholder days in addition to the

individual meetings with stakeholders. Very important dissemination work was carried out in

collaboration with already existing fairs and conferences at which the LCA project made

either an oral or poster presentation and at special cases exhibited the lawn experiments as

well. This collaboration was cost-efficient way to carry out dissemination action. In several

seminars the whole project or a specific – most important action for the audience - was

presented. In addition to participation in fairs and seminars in Finland also four conferences

were participated abroad which widened to dissemination work to European and global.

Public was informed about the dissemination activities in addition to seminar organizers own

promotion also by three Media News releases (Annex Ac5 20, Ac5 60 and Ac5 85 & 86) and

at the exhibitions info for participants (Annex Ac5 17 and Ac5 18). Number of participants

was recorded in special occasions (Annex Ac5 19 and Ac5 20).

It is worth mentioning that as the project beneficiaries and partners came from various

stakeholder groups also internal communications within the project served an important

dissemination activity. This was widened also by the fact that trainees working for the project

(particularly for Action 2 Demonstration) study their diploma or masters degree at five

different universities (Helsinki, Häme, Jyväskylä, Turku and Oulu).

http://www.lcainlandcaping.fi/


42

4.2.2. Dissemination activities by Actions

4.2.2.1. Specifications

Specifications team collaborated particularly with the stakeholders as city gardeners in

production the specifications data material for the project. Specifications made presentations

of the Action at the projects Mid-Term and Final Seminars. The deliverables material

produced for the project is valuable material for landscaping curriculum studies (Annex Ac1 )

and a further four “ready for lecture” power point presentations were produced on for

educational purposes on lawn establishment (Annex Ac5 75); lawn maintenance (Annex Ac5

76), lawn quality issues (Annex Ac5 77) and on environment issues in landscaping (Annex

Ac5 78).

4.2.2.2. Demo

Communication with stakeholders – both city gardeners and substrate producers – was

important during the planning and carry out of the demonstration Action. This is illustrated in

by photos of the Demo action in Chapter 3.1.2. of this report. While city gardeners were

visited personally when discussing the demonstration site possibilities a workshop was

arranged for substrate producers in addition to the individual visits to substrate production

sites. Communication and dialog continued throughout the project period and continue.

Notice boards were erected which included information of the project and specific

information of the actual demonstration. Further information was available at the website of

the demonstrations. In Jokioinen and in Lepaa three demonstrations were located side by side

so one main notice board served the demonstrations with additional specific information of

each individual demonstration. Therefore seventeen notice boards were erected to the 20

demonstration sites. Specifications and information of the demonstrations were available of

the each demonstration on the website. The demonstrations were utilized to show stakeholders

and general public the use of different types of material particularly at the establishment of

Lepaa demonstrations in 2011 and of Vaskipuisto demonstration in 2012. Vaskipuisto

establishment was used for LIFE20 Anniversary celebration campaign on 22nd

of May 2012.

The demonstrations were exhibited to wide audience especially at the annual three-day Lepaa

Fairs in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Upto ten thousand visitors participate in the Lepaa fair. It

served a very cost efficient way to disseminate information of the demonstrations and of the

project in general. Annexes Ac5 17 and 18 describe some of the ways and activities at the

Lepaa fair.

Similar existing dissemination occasions were used also at Marketanpuisto (which is a

landscaping exhibition park) in Espoo at the VIHERTEK biannual exhibitions in 2012 and

2014 as well as at the Ylistaro site which had annual field days in 2014 and in 2013 was part

of the exhibition programme of the large national agricultural fair (which was arranged in

2013 in that area of Finland). At Jokioinen the demonstrations and pot trials were presented

and exhibited to several visiting groups (Fig. 33-38).


43

Fig 33. Visiting stake holders at

site planning at Marketanpuisto

exhibition Park in Espoo.

Fig 34. Celebrating LIFE20 at

Vaskipuisto establishment

22.5.2012 in Forssa.

Fig 35. Exhibiting GHG-

measurements for students at

Vaskipuisto demonstrations.

Fig 36. Notice boards provided

information of the project and of

the demo site. More information

was available at the website.

Fig 37. Pot trial materials for

display at Mid-Term seminar at

Lepaa fair 2012.

Fig 38. Demonstration were

exhibited by the annual Lepaa

fairs 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014

to wide audience.

Activities and results of the demonstration were disseminated to professional audience in

seminars and workshops and to wide audience by articles. Articles of the demonstrations

provide information of the demonstration activity to wide audience.

4.2.2.3. LCA tools

Formulation of LCA tool and data collection for its parameters required a lot of meetings and

discussions with the various stakeholder groups in various landscaping businesses altought

the material was produced in collaboration with the Specification, Demonstration and Cost –

benefit Actions. LCA tool production has novelty innovation character and this was

disseminated to scientific audience of LCA experts in SETAC conferences in Copenhagen

Denmark in 2013 and in Novi Sad Serbia in 2014 (Annex Ac5 97). This will continue in After

Life as a scientific article on the LCA study was requested to be produced based on the

presentation of a in NoviSad and the manuscript was submitted on 29.4.2015 (Annex Ac5 88).

LCA tool is available for use at the website both in Finnish and English and we do anticipate

dialog to continue about development it further. This is a first step. Contacts to international

LCA research establishment is important to fill up the identified knowledge gaps in parameter

data like GHG-emissions in various types of composting methods.

LCA tool and LCA study results were presented e.g. in the several seminars as a presentation

or by a poster.

4.2.2.4. Cost benefit

Production of Cost-benefit study required as well close collaboration to get reliable

information of the current prices of products and work. The thesis work produced in Cost-

benefit was produced for Kekkilä Mustankorkea substrate production site in Jyväskylä.


44

Cost benefit presentations were presented in fairs and seminars and also in Estonia (Annex

Ac5 94) for local city landscaping personnel in their native language.

4.2.2.5. Dissemination (general)

Project web-site (www.lcainlandcaping.fi) (Annex Ac5 1) was opened 31.1.2011. The

website operation was transferred from VYL to MTT in spring 2013 when VYL withdrew

from the project operation. The website will be kept operational at Luke for several years

after the completion of the project (Annex Ac5 88).

Project brochures were produced in Finnish, English and Swedish (Annex Ac5 14, 15 and 16).

Layman’s Report will be an important tool in After Life dissemination (Annex Ac5 51).

Several articles about the project were produced.

The following list illustrate the many occasions at which the project’s activities were

presented: (Presentations and poster materials are available at the project website):

- The “Responsible business through sustainable recycling” seminar arranged by

EnviGrowPark (Eco-industrial Park) in Forssa 30.9.2010., by a poster (Annex

Ac5 21)

- Viherpäivät, Tampere, February 2011; poster (Annex Ac5 52)

- Lepaa2011Exhibition, exhibiting field demonstrations at Lepaa (Annex Ac5 24

and 53).

- Kaupunkisuunnitteluseminaari, (City planning seminar) November 2011, Helsinki,

poster. (Annex Ac5 26)

- Maataloustieteen Päivät, 10-11.1.2012, Helsinki, poster and an article (Annex Ac5

27 and Annex Ac5 40)

- Project workshop for stakeholders, 1.2.2012. (Annex Ac 5 30, 31, 43)

- Viherpäivät 14-15.2.2012, Tampere, a presentation and a poster (Annex Ac5 and

Annex Ac5 29 and 28)

- LIFE20 celebration occasion at Vaskipuisto on 22.5.2012. Establishment of the

Vaskipuisto demonstration exhibited (Annex Ac5 20).

- Lepaa2012Fair 16-18.8.2012 & Mid-Term seminar, five presentations and

exhibiting showing the field demonstrations at Lepaa. (Annex Ac5

- VIHERTEK 23-24.8.2012. Espoo, exhibiting the demonstration at

Marketanpuisto. Annex Ac5

- Biolaitosyhdistyksen vuosiseminaari 15.11.2012 (Bioplant Association’s Annual

seminar 15.11.2012) Presentation Annex Ac5 62

- Lepaa2013 Fair exhibition posters Annex Ac5 68, 69, 70, 71, 72

- Maataloustieteen Päivät, 8-9.1.2014, Helsinki, two posters (Annex Ac5 91 and 92)

and two articles (Annex Ac5 89 and 90)

- Lepaa 2014 Fair Annex Ac5

- Presentation at Viheraluerakentajat Seminar 27.11.2014. Annex Ac5 99

- Presentation at Setac conference in Novisad Serbia (Annex Ac5 97).

- Presentation at Biolaitosyhdistyksen vuosiseminaari (Bioplant Association’s

Annual seminar 30.10.2014 Annex Ac5_97

- Final Seminar 9.12.2014 at Hämeenlinna – Proceedings of the presentations and

photos of the seminar (Annex Ac5 50 and Annex Ac5 xlist of the participants)

http://www.lcainlandcaping.fi/


45

Viherympäristö -seminars in February, Lepaa fair in August and Biolaitosyhdistys annual

seminar (in November) served excellent occasions to reach the professional landscaping

personnel at the various branches of the landscaping business.

The project naturally participated in Kick off occasion with a presentation (Annex Ac5 100).

The Mid-Term Seminar was arranged in conjuction to the Lepaa 2012 fair. Final Seminar

was arranged at HAMK Hämeenlinna campus on 9.12.2014. The seminar gathered a good

amount of 70 participants (Annex Ac5 87) of many special professional areas on landscaping.

The presentations and photos of the seminar are presented in the Proceedings of the Final

Seminar (Annex Ac5 50).

Public at large was informed about activities by three Media News releases (Annex Ac5 19

Ac5 20, Ac5 60; Ac5 85, Ac5 86) and in the exhibition info (Annex Ac5_17 and Ac5_18 ).

Number of participants was recorded in special occasions (Annex Ac5_19 and Ac5_20). The

media news release at the Project completion presenting main findings was produced in

Finnish and in English (Annex Ac5 85 and 86).

Action 5 “Dissemination” was active in international functions as well (see Annexes Ac5 55;

Ac5 56; Ac5 57; Ac5 58; Ac5 61; Ac5 63; Ac5 64 and Ac5_11). The European Congress of

the International Federation of Park and Recreation Authorities provided a good opportunity

to inform of the project to a very influential audience. In the SETAC seminar the LCA

specialists were informed of the application of the approach on this subject area. In addition

project participated in a Nordic seminar in Helsinki, Finland and presentation in Estonia.

Project activities and results were presented in several seminar presentations in Finland (see

Annexes Ac5 6; Ac5 9; Ac5 12; Ac5 13; Ac5 14; Ac5 15; Ac5 16; Ac5 20).

The project made an application to participate in Green Week in 2011 when the theme was

suitable for the project activities (Annex Ac5 42). In 2014 project manager Oiva Niemeläinen

and LCA specialist Frans Silvenius participated in the Green Week on the invitation by Hervé

Martin in 2014 and discussed the project and its results with other LIFE project colleagues

and the LIFE ENV personnel. as with the Technical Desk Officer Izabela Madalinska. They

met also Director Timo Mäkelä from DG Environment and EEA Executive director Hans

Bruynyinkx and discussed about the project objectives and progress. Special attention was

paid to circumstances for LIFE project replications if that would be possible in our case.

Applying the LCA tool on new geographical areas and or focusing on lawn maintenance

issues on intensively managed lawn areas like on golf courses.

Facebook and twitter are new tools in communication and the latest press release was

distributed also by these means by Luke’s information personnel.

Layman Report is produced and attached as Annex Ac5 51.

VYL The Finnish Association for Landscape Industries will continue its operation and its

website and annual fairs (Viherpäivät) and magazine (Viherympäristö) will remain as an

important channel in AfterLife communication to the landscaping audience.

After Life Communication Plan is produced and attached Ac8 1.


46

4.3 Evaluation of Project Implementation

The project consortium setup was very useful for the purposes. The background in LCA

expertise at MTT and connections to landscaping industry through VYL and VIHER were

very fruitful for producing good platform for collecting and sharing information in LCA tools

production phase. HAMK Lepaa served as an excellent venue to exhibit the demonstrations at

Lepaa at the annual horticultural fairs. VYL provided a very good two-way channel to

landscaping industries.

The lawn demonstrations at Lepaa, Jokioinen, Pori, Forssa, Hämeenlinna, Jyväskylä and

Espoo show that utilization on waste derived substrates are possible also at city centres and at

places demanding highest quality. Results of cost-benefit study can be utilized in further

promotion of use of recycled materials in landscaping. Use of LCA tool and LCA calculations

will be very useful for identifying points which require most attention and where the measures

would have strongest impact.

Utilizing the demonstrations in dissemination activity was more challenging than anticipated.

The demonstrations at Lepaa, Forssa, Ylistaro and Jokioinen as well as at Marketanpuisto

Espoo were utilized in several occasion but use of the other sites was challenging. This was

partly that summer season was very busy with the practical work with demos and it was

difficult to incorporate dissemination actions on the other than own demonstration sites.

Utilizing the existing annual fairs and conferences proved out to be very cost efficient way for

dissemination.


47

Task Foreseen in the revised

proposal

Achieved Evaluation

Ac1

Specification

Description of lawn

establishment and

maintenance processes

Yes. Useful material was produced for

project carry out and for

educational purposes.

Ac2 Demo Promotion of use of

recycled materials and data

production LCA studies

Yes Cost-effectiveness of the actions

was lower than anticipated.

Demonstrations which located far

away from MTT were difficult to

utilize in dissemination actions and

in data production. Provides good

possibilities for After LIFE

communication.

Ac3 LCA

tool

Tool to facilitate

environment impact

assessment

Yes. Useful and applicable tool was

produced which will provide good

possibilities for further work and

impact through authrorities when

adopted in use. High innovation

value.

Ac4 Cost-

benefit

Promotions of use of

recycled materials

Yes Obtained results can be used in

promoting recycled materials.

Ac5

Disseminatio

n

Promotion of use recycled

materials and enhancement

on paying attention to

environmental impacts in

landscaping

Yes Impact was sub-optimal to general

public in general but good to peers

and stakeholders. Will be

continued in After LIFE and is

likely to have larger impact on

general public in the future. and

provides chances to continue work.

Ac6

Management

Smooth operation Yes Managed satisfactorily in

challenging situation with

organizational changes and

withdrawal of two beneficiaries.

Ac7

Monitoring

Support to project

management

Yes Provided very useful advice and

strict follow up of project progress

for management

The project team was most available for dissemination actions during the winter season than

during the pressing summer field work period. Therefore the dissemination work focused on

activities in seminars by presenting the project activities in several occasions. It was very

useful to make the project known and the audience familiar with the LCA approach. Outcome

will come gradually and it is anticipated that the greatest impact on general public will appear

in After LIFE period.

Withdrawal of AGROP and VYL increased the work load at MTT which effected the carry

out of Action 2 Demo activities because increased attention was needed also on

Dissemination and on Cost-benefit actions.


48

4.4 Analysis of long-term benefits

Environmental benefits

Waste management and recycling are core activities in the Circular Economy as presented in

Green Week 2014 presentations. The project promoted the goals of circular economy.

Attitudes towards use of recycled materials have changed to be more favourable.

1. Long-term benefits and sustainability

a. Long-term / qualitative environmental benefits

Introduction of the LCA approach raises visibility to environmental problems

and solutions specifying the knowledge gaps. Good experiences of using

recycled materials in growing media products in demonstration broke barriers

to utilise these products increasingly in landscaping – also in city centre areas.

Nutrient recycling – on key goal in the circular economy will be improved.

Replacing the peat in composting and substrate production will enhance

achieving the carbon neutral communities. However, possibility to high

nutrient leaching has to be taken into consideration in substrate production to

vulnerable sites e.g. located close to waterways. The LCA tool provides a good

mean for designing substrates to different sites and purposes.

b. Long-term / qualitative economic benefits. The cost-benefit study showed the

favourable socio-economic effects – in addition to environmental benefits –

when using recycled materials in landscaping which will lead to new working

opportunities.

c. Long-term social benefits appear when attitudes change more positive to use of

recycled material which will provide working places in biowaste collection,

composting and in substrate production.

d. Continuation of the project actions by the beneficiary or by other stakeholders.

Filling up the knowledge gaps and utilising the tool to study effect of various

maintenance options. The project team is preparing new project proposals to

continue the work and e.g. widen the utilization of LCA tool to lawn

maintenance options and to fill up the knowledge gaps and demonstrate the use

of the LCA tool in designing substrate products. Production of the LCA tool in

this project is considered as a first step. It can be used in several situations but,

however, require further development to give best answers in specific

situations.

2. The LCA tool is replicable to other geographic areas when the input data and

certain calculation formulas (not all) are first adjusted to prevailing conditions at

the study site. Cooperation is needed in to fill up the knowledge gaps observed.

The LCA tool is easy to use and it provides potential for technical applications on

quite wide area in landscaping businesses. It provides benefits e.g. for substrate

producers to choose materials and to design products to special purposes. Substrate

producers are specific target group on EU level.

3. Collaboration with already existing dissemination actions and the annual LEPAA

horticultural and landscaping fairs was a very cost efficient and useful mode for

operation. Also the annual winter seminars of VYL provided an excellent site to

discuss and present results to professional target group.


49

4. Application of LCA to landscaping had innovation value and it provides a new

approach for authorities a) to get knowledge of the most important areas to pay

attention to, and when considering environmental measures b) it provide a mean to

assess the possible environmental impacts of various measures.

5. The amount of use of collected biowaste and sludge from waste water treatment

plants to substrate production either after anaerobic digestion and composting or

directly composting has increased in Finland. Use of “the soil improving materials”

(raw materials have been e.g. sewage sludge, biowaste, manure) has increased from

100 000 m3 to 148 000 m

3 from 2008 to 2012 in landscaping and from 275 000 m

3

to 305 000 m3 for further use in substrate production during the same period

(Pirkkamaa 2014). Long term indicators of the project success: describe the

quantifiable indicators to be used in future assessments of the project success.

Increased use of substrates in cities landscaping sites and replacing peat

increasingly by compost would provide an indicator for progress and how suitable

the substrate products are for the targeted utilization sites. Utilization of the LCA

tool and further development of it would indicate also good success of the project

achievements.

The main impact of the project is that by the LCA tool the growing media producers can

design their growing media production process and substrate production components so that

the environmental impact in the production process as well as at the end use situation will be

understood and minimized. This is already in process. The stakeholders have provided basic

data for the calculations and are keen to adjust their processes to obtain most favourable

production process. Practical ways to change use of peat moss to compost in producing

substrates and improving the climate impact of composting process by optimizing the process

need to be promoted. In addition, studies are needed to measure GHG emission in composting

and by which means those can be reduced.

Increased use of ammonium tripping in composting process would further improve the overall

environmental impacts by reducing acidification impact. The anticipated new LIFE ENV

proposal would address these issues.

LCA approach will provide one new tool to local and EU authorities to look at the

environmental impacts of whole landscaping chain. It can be applied also to assess

environmental impacts of various lawn maintenance options (e.g. using recycled material

fertilizer products vs fertilizers produced by fossil fuels) especially at the high intensity care

sites like sport lawns and at golf courses.

More waste needs to be recycled in the future. It follows that that the industry needs more

employees throughout all the phases of the composting process; i.e. collection, engineering

and construction, machine operation, logistics and transportation, marketing, research and

development, landscaping, etc. Utilization of waste-derived materials in landscaping will

create jobs. With the above need for personnel in various phases in composting, the influence

can, and does already, affect the economy greatly. Increase in recycling means rise in

personnel. There are economic benefits for many stakeholder groups. The cost-benefit study

supported this and the substrates with compost got better values in employment and

acceptability in social impacts compared to substrates with peat.


50

5. Comments on the financial report

Kilometre allowance is based on the state rule, and it was in 2010: 0.45 €/km, in 2011: 0.46

€/km, in 2012: 0.45 €/km, in 2013 0.45 €/km and in 2014 0.43 €/km. Use of own cars has

been accepted only if no company cars are available, and a driver’s log has been demanded.

In that case kilometre allowances are reported. MTT’s company cars have been fuelled up and

charged for the project at long trips only; the driving with company cars has always been

recorded on the driver’s log. The daily allowance was 16 € in 2010, 2011 and in 2012 if the

trip was 6-10 hours and 17€ in 2013 and 18€ in 2014. If the trip lasted longer than 10 hours

the daily allowance was 36 € in 2010 and in 2012, 34 € in 2011, 38 € in 2013 and 39 € in

2014 (according to state’s travelling rule). Travelling with public transport was paid only if

tickets were attached to the travel expense report. Hotel rooms, parking fees were accepted

only with receipt.

Purchase of the equipment was carried out according to the rules followed at MTT (asking for

offers from three providers if at least three providers are available). The purchased equipment

has been included in the MTT’s equipment list and marked with the LIFE logo (See Annexes

Ac6_x).

Working hours of owner entrepreneur VIHER exceeded 2000 hours per year which was

accepted by the project due to exceptionally high workload on the branch in general. The

delay in delivery of financial documents by VIHER discussed during external monitoring

team visit on 13-14.6.2012 was solved and the documents have be obtained and respective

associated beneficiary statement of expenditure was produced and is part of the Financial

Report. We worked out - according to the guidelines discussed with the external monitoring

team - estimates for fuel costs for using own machinery at the demonstration construction

and travelling by VIHER and show justification for the fuel costs in (Annex Ac6 5). The

“External assistance” procedure raised as one option in the letter of Mr Capitao dated

12.7.2012 related to costs at VIHER was not applicable in the project.

Participation in international seminars and conferences was specified as one dissemination

activity in the project plan. These seminars – which were not announced at project application

time – were not mentioned in the financial forms concerning travelling. We request the

appeared useful activities to be accepted for project eligible costs as participation in the

IFPRA European congress in 4-6 September 2012 in Basel, Switzerland. Participation

permission was discussed with project Desk Office Mr Nogara via email and during EC

monitoring team to project on 13-14.6.2012. Similarly the participation in the SETAC LCA

Case Study Symposium, which was held 26-28 November 2012 in Copenhagen, the projects

LCA activities was presented and discussed. Participation and presentation of project results

at SETAC conference at Novi Sad Serbia on was approved by Technical Desk Office Izabela

Madalinska through email (Annex Ac6 6). Presentation of the LCA tool at Novi Sad was very

successful and lead to request write a full article of the LCA tool to the Journal. The

manuscript was submitted on 29.4.2015 (Annex Ac5 88). List of travel mission to abroad a

listed as Annex Ac6 F7 International travels).

Interpretation of temporary and permanent staff status caused headache for the public

beneficiaries MTT and HAMK in the project in relation to application of the 2 per cent rule

for public agents. It can be stated that none of the project activities in the project would have

been carried out in the beneficiaries if no external funding would have been provided for the

project. The guidelines provided by commission (letter by Mr. Capitao dated 12 July 2012 for


51

clarifying this matter stated that salary costs of civil servants seconded to the project are

eligible, but they are not temporary personnel and are therefore counted in the 2% rule.

Arranging adequate own funding for the project remained a challenge for project

management. Withdrawal of beneficiaries AGROP and VYL added pressure on this matter as

more work load was set on coordinating beneficiary MTT. Fortunately the 2-percent rule was

met at MTT and by the project.

Request for amendments was submitted to the Commission on 27th

March 2013 when

withdrawal of the beneficiary VYL was confirmed. In that occasion a request was submitted

that budget allocations would be amended. The project management suggested to maintain the

original budget frame for the project but requested extension of the project period by four

months from 31.8.2014 to 31.12.2104. These amendments were approved by the commission

(Annex Ac6 4).

Incurred costs per beneficiaries differed from the plan as after the Amendment part of the

responsibilities of beneficiaries AGROP and VYL was taken over by coordinating beneficiary

MTT. Difficulties at private entrepreneur beneficiary VIHER resulted that total expenditure

by VIHER was smaller than planned and the same occurred also with the public beneficiary

HAMK which had difficulties to allocate temporary staff to the project in prevailing working

situation at public organizations and guidelines to manage with existing staff and order not to

take additional temporary staff.

5.1. Summary of Costs Incurred

The total eligible costs of the project 863 188,93 e exceeded the project budget by 3 percent.

The alterations within the cost categories were within the accepted level 10% and 30 000 e.

The personnel costs exceeded the 621 586 e budget allocation by 56 400,43 e which was

mainly due to the 4 months longer duration of the project period. Extra time was needed to

replace the expertise after withdrawal of beneficiaries AGROP and VYL.

PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Cost category Budget according to the

grant agreement*

Costs incurred within

the project duration

%**

1. Personnel 621 586,00 677 986,43 109

2. Travel 63 500,00 24 463,38 39

3. External assistance 28 000,00 36 277,76 130

4. Durables: total non-

depreciated cost 0

0,00

- Infrastructure sub-

tot. 0

0

- Equipment sub-tot. 15 000,00 5 056,67 34

- Prototypes sub-tot. 0

5. Consumables 57 600,00 59 125,72 103

6. Other costs 0 5 280,97 -

7. Overheads 54 998,00 54 998,00 100

TOTAL 840 684,00 863 188,93 103


52

5.2. Accounting system

Accounting system of MTT

Accounting at MTT is performed using a financial management system called AdeEko+.

MTT uses the electronic travel management system called M2. In M2 system, the travel plans

and invoices are allocated to the project by using the project and action codes. The travel

plans and invoices are checked both by the factual verificator and acceptor who was Group

Manager of Plant Production Jokioinen. Electronic processing, routing and archiving of

purchase invoices and receipts were performed in a system called Rondo. The invoices were

verified by LCA in landscaping project staff and accepted by Group Manager electronically.

As a part of consolidated government accounts, MTT issues each month a monthly financial

statement in a predefined format. The data therein was transferred to the central accounts

managed by the State Treasury. As the monthly financial statement was completed, the

accounting data for projects was also updated with the actual working hours and salary costs

incurred during the month. The annual financial statement, too, was transferred to the central

accounting at the State Treasury to be included with the consolidated government accounts. In

the accounting system the project code 21070045 was used to allocate the costs to the project.

In addition, the project’s costs were allocated by actions by using seven sub-codes according

to the Actions. The project partners allocated the costs to the project by using their own codes

for LCA in landscaping (see below).

Working hours at MTT were tracked comprehensively by timesheets filled up by employees.

Life+ timesheet forms were used between 1.9.2010 and 31.12.2011. After that MTT moved to

SoleTM system, which is an electronic working hour allocation system. In the timesheets, the

daily working hours were allocated to projects and tasks, using the actual working hours. The

working hours can be viewed by unit, area of responsibility, research project and person. This

system was discussed during the Commission’s financial desk office Mrs Ver Eycken and the

representative of the external monitoring team Ms Salmi on 13-14 June 2012. The electronic

working time registration system did not calculate the actual working time automatically even

though the absences are visible in the printed records. In the Commission advice letter 12th

of

July 2012 on the matter Joaquim Capitao accepted the electronic signatures if there is a

possibility to receive extracts from the system also showing the workflow with names and

dates of visas. In addition, the further information by Joaquim Capitao on 14.3.2013 for

PesticideLife project coordinated by MTT were taken into account. According to that

PesticideLife LIFE project feedback from Commission the handwritten additions to the

printed records were assessed acceptable.

The direct salary costs of a project were obtained by running a report in AdeEko+ that outputs

the actual working hours logged to the project (effective working hours) and salary costs

(salaries and indirect employee costs). The indirect employee costs included in salaries

consists of a person insurance, accident insurance, and social security costs. The indirect

employee costs varied a little from year to year. They amounted to 21,96% in 2010, 22,582%

in 2011, 21,935%, in 2012, 21,361%, in 2013, and 22,347% in 2014.

It was made sure by the project staff that all invoices contained the acronym “LCA in

landscaping” as an identifier. The projects full code LIFE09 ENV FI 00570 was used since

advice from commission. Most of the invoices at MTT were also marked with the project

code 21070045. In the financial worksheets of project every invoice was allocated to the

certain action by adding manually the Action code.


53

Accounting systems at project partners

HAMK University of Applied Sciences separated the LCA in landscaping project from other

accounting material with project code 124710.

HAMK used the following programmes:

Prima CGI Suomi palkanlaskentajärjestelmä (for payroll)

TEM Basware matkalaskujärjestelmä (for travelling costs)

Perconec Wintime, taloushallinnon kirjanpitojärjestelmä (for accounting)

IP, Invoice Processing, ostolaskujen sähköinen käsittely, (electronic invoice processing)

FPM budjetointi – ja työajanseurantajärjestelmä (tool for budjeting and follow up of working

time by Basware)

Tositelajit (types of invoice

FMP muistioviennit, salaries

IP invoices

MVS muistioviennit

ML Tem-matkalaskutositteet (travel bill documents).

AGROP Agropolis Ltd had accounting by Accounting company.

Accounting of VYL has been carried out be Accounting company Viher-Tilit tmi.

VIHER Viherrakenne Jaakkola’s accounting has been carried out by Accounting company.

5.3. Partnership arrangements

The project structure was established prior to the start of the project. At Coordinating

beneficiary MTT the Project Manager and Administrative/Financial Secretary for the Project

were assigned in August 2010. Meeting with the project partners and management was

arranged on 6.9.2010 at MTT. Personnel were seconded at each beneficiary into the project’s

actions as needed. Guidance on needed procedures and forms and guidelines for reporting was

provided for project partners in autumn 2010. First Project Team meeting was arranged on

8.11.2010. Partnership agreements were signed in December 2010 (Annex Ac6 1).

Management Board was established and first meeting took place on 14.12.2010. All

beneficiaries made the financial reporting by themselves when Financial Secretary Taru

Könkö had explained them the required procedures. MTT provided the EC funding to all

project beneficiaries according to their share in the original budget.

AGROP beneficiary had to withdraw in 30.6.2012 from the project due to financial

difficulties. Later on the same year a decision was made to close down the Agropolis

company by the shareholders of the company.

VYL withdraw from the project due to financial difficulties 30.3.2013 when its whole

personnel was discharged. However, VYL continue to operate some activities as an

Association and provided one useful information channel for the project during its duration as

well as continue to do so in the After Life phase.


54

5.4. Auditor's report/declaration

MTT has an agreement with PwC Julkistarkastus Oy (y-code 1064970-0); address PwC

Julkistarkastus, PL 1015, 00101 Helsinki, which is valid on auditing MTT’s EC funded

projects. The person in charge of auditing at PwC is JHTT Topi Kataja. PwC Julkistarkastus

paid auditing visit to MTT (Luke) on 26.2.2015 and on 5.3.2015 and audited the accounts and

interviewed Financial Secretary Taru Könkö and Project Manager Oiva Niemeläinen.

Auditor’s report is presented as Annex Ac6 7.

5.5 Summary of costs per action

Action no.

Short name of action

1. Personnel

2. Travel and subsistenc

e

3. External

assistance

4.a Infra-struct

ure

4.b Equip-ment

4.c Prototype

5. Purchase or lease

of land

6. Consumabl

es

7. Other costs

TOTAL

1 Specifica

tions 34265.98 24184.40 5850.70 353.01 0.00 42888.09

2 Demo 338350.85 7482.37 15631.52 5056.67 52234.37 1677.17 420432.95

3 LCA

tools 95220.33 2078.99 0.00 2004.28 150.00 99453.60

4 Cost

benefit 56494.59 770.00 0.00 85.59 75.00 57425.18

5 Dissemination

74194.46 8979.38 6596.83 3764.48 2245.40 95780.55

6 Manage

ment 68083.25 1934.64 8198.71 683.99 474.40 76388.99

7 Monitori

ng 14376.97 885.60 0.00 0.00 659.00 15821.57

Over-heads

52855.69

TOTAL 677986.42 24463.38 36277.76 0 5056.67 0 0 59125.72 5280.97 808190.92

Expenditure in Actions was somewhat smaller than in the budget plan except in Action 2

Demo. Costs in Actions 3 LCA tools (budget vs. expenditure 109 009 e vs. 99 453 e), in

Action 4 Cost-benefit (65 620 e vs 57 425 e), and Action 7 Monitoring (25 100 e vs 15 182 e)

were quite close to the budget plan. Costs in Action 5 Dissemination were low (95 781 e) in

relation to (130 500 e) the budget plan as well as in Action 6 Management (98 100 vs.

76 389).Costs in the largest Action 2 Demo were higher (420 433 e) than in the budgeted plan

(320 207 e). The high expenditure in Action 2 Demo was caused that allocation of work has

been put on Action 2 Demo although in many cases more correct allocation would have been

to allocate the work input on Action 5 Dissemination or on Action 3 LCA tools. Work in

Actions was very much interwoven. For example work on lawn mowing and at dissemination

functions at the demonstration sites have been coded to Action 2 Demo although Action 5

Dissemination at dissemination functions and Action 3 LCA tools in case of fuel consumption

measurements would have been more correct. According to MTT’s time recording system for

example field technician Kirsi Raiskio has allocated all her hours (1310 hours) to Action 2

Demo. However, she participated in many dissemination actions at the demonstration sites.

Project manager Oiva Niemeläinen allocated only 35 % of his total hours (3262) in the project

to Action 6 Management and only 22 % on Action 5 Dissemination while biggest share of

hours 37 % was allocated on Action 2 Demo. Mr Niemeläinen was responsible for these three

Actions at the end of the project.


55

Most short term personnel at MTT marked their hours on Action 2 Demo although their work

could and in many cases should have been allocated on other Actions. Project’s full time

short –term researcher Tiina Ruuskanen, however, had allocated of her 4094 hours 6 hours

to Action 1 Specifications, 1340 hours to Action 2 Demo, 844hours to Action 3 LCA tools,

and 1496hours to Action 4 Cost –benefit, and 344 hours to Action 5 Dissemination.

Ganf Chart of project progress was updated and used as one mean for project planning and

follow up. In the following timetable the whole extended project period is presented as in the

project agreement and as actually occurred taken into account also 4 month extension of the

project duratio.

LCA IN LANDSCAPING Timetable (as in the Project Document and actual occurred time table)

LCA 2010 and

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Action Action name / Quarter

3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1 SPECIFICATIONS

1 (Realised timetable

2 DEMO

2 Realised timetable

3 LCA


4 COST-BENEFIT


5 DISSEMINATION


6 MANAGEMENT


7 MONITORING


8 AFTER LIFE

8 Plan for future


56

6. Annexes

6.1 Administrative annexes

If the Annex was submitted in a prior report the Inception Report in abbreviated as IR

(Submitted 6.4.2011 , The Mid Term Report as MTR (Submitted 30.10.2012) and the

Progress Report as PP (Submitted 2.12.2013)

Annex Ac6 1 LIFE09 ENV FI 000570 LCA IN LANDSCAPING ”Partnership

agreements” (Subm. in IR)

Annex Ac6 2 AGROP informs by letter withdrawal of the project 1.7.2012 (Subm. in

MTR as Annex Ac6 3 )

Annex Ac6 3 VYL informs by letter date 7.1.2013 withdrawal on of the project by

31.3.2013

Annex Ac6 4 Amendment to the Grant Agreement

Annex Ac6 5 Fuel costs justification information concerning VIHER

Annex Ac6 6 Postponement of Final Report delivery - request and approval

Annex Ac6 7 Auditor’s Report

Annex Ac6 8 Info of project team and management board meetings

Annex Ac6 9 Outcome Indicators

Plus Financial Annexes marked as Annex Ac6 F1…15 in Financial Report and Annexes.

6.2 Technical annexes

Deliverables are listed in order to the list of deliverable products in the project

agreement:

Annex Ac5 1 Project website (Subm. in IR)

Annex Ac5 88 Project website at MTT / Luke serves since March 2013.

Annex Ac1 1 Specification compiled for amenity lawn establishment and management

procedures (draft version at the beginning of the project (Subm. in IR)

Annex Ac1 11 Specification compiled for amenity lawn establishment and

management procedures updated version at the completion of the project.

Annex Ac2 6 Plan for project first year demonstration establishment (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 7 Plan for project second year demonstration establishment (Subm. in

MTR)

Notice boards to demonstration sites

o Annex Ac5 2 Notice board at the demonstration site in HAMK Lepaa. It

serves 3 demonstrations (Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 3 Notice board at the demonstration site in MTT Jokioinen. It

serves 3 demonstrations (Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 4 Notice board at the pot trials in MTT Jokioinen. It serves also

sod-turf production demonstration. (Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 5 Notice board at the demonstration site "Lutakko" in Jyväskylä.

(Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 6 Notice board at the demonstration "Viitaniemi" in Jyväskylä.

(Subm. in MTR)


57

o Annex Ac5 7 Notice board at the demonstration "Leirintäalue" in Pori city.

(Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 8 Notice board at the demonstration site "Lotskeri" in Pori city.

(Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 9 Notice board at the demonstration site "Punaportti" in

Hämeenlinna city. (Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 10 Notice board at the demonstration site "Loimalahti" in

Hämeenlinna city. (Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 11 Notice board at the demonstration site in "Vaskipuisto", Forssa

city. (Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 12 Notice board at the demonstration site "Marketanpuisto" in

Espoo city. (Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 13 Notice board at the sod-turf production demonstration site in

Ylistaro. (Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5_26 Notice board for new demonstration site of sod turf production

in Ylistaro (Subm. in PP as Annex Ac2 1)

o Annex Ac5_45 Notice board for sod turf production in Jokioinen

o Annex Ac5_46 Notice board for demonstration site of green roof

demonstration site at Lepaa

o Annex Ac5_47 Notice board for lawn management demonstration at Lepaa

o Annex Ac5_48 Notice board for the flower meadow transplantation

demonstration at Ylistaro

Brochures of project (three language versions)

o Annex Ac5 14 Brochure of the project, Finnish version (In MTR)

o Annex Ac5 15 Brochure of the project, Swedish version (In MTR)

o Annex Ac5 16 Brochure of the project, English version (In MTR)

Annex Ac2 28 Report of demonstration results and experiences

Annex Ac3 2 and 3 LCA tool for waste-derived substrates produced (In Finnish and

English)

Annex Ac4 4 Cost-benefit report on use of waste to waste-derived green surfaces

(final version submitted in Final Report

Annex Ac6 3 Mid-Term Report (Submitted 30.10.2012)

Articles for press.

o Annex Ac5 17 Article of the project in Viherympäristö magazine (Subm. in

MTR)

o Annex Ac5 18 Article of the LCA in landscaping activity in IFPRA World

magazine (Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 19 Article of tunturinurmikka in Maaseudun Tiede magazine

(Subm. in MTR)

o Annex Ac5 40 Article for Maataloustieteen Päivät

o Annex Ac5 41 Article for presentation at Viherpäivät 14-15.2.2012 Tampere

o Annex Ac5 49 “Application of life-cycle assessment on establishment and

maintenance of amenity lawns”. Summary in the IFPRA congress proceedings.

(Subm in PP as Annex Ac5_2)

o Annex Ac5_22 Nurmikolle kierrätysmateriaaleja. Puutarha- & kauppa. 2013.

No. 16. 26.9.2013.

o Annex Ac5 105 Article in the Seutu Sanomat Newspaper 29.4.2015

o Annex Ac5 107 Manuscript on LCA tool and results to the Integrated

Environmental Assessment and Management Journal. (submitted 29.4.2015)


58

o Annex Ac5 106 Manuscript on LCA tool and environmental impacts in

landscaping to Viherympäristö magazine (submitted 29.4.2015)

Annex Ac5 50 Proceedings of the Final Seminar

(Ac6 Final Report)

Annex Ac8 1 After-Life Communication Plan

Annex Ac5 51 Layman’s Report

Annex Ac7 6 Final Monitoring report

Annexes of progress indicators compiled and filed by Actions as follows:

Annex Ac1 1 Specification compiled for amenity lawn establishment and management

procedures (Subm. in IR and MTR)

Annex Ac1 2_3 Values for establishment and management processes specified for

three intensity level lawns (Subm.in MTR)

Annex Ac1 4 Annex Ac1 4 Lawn quality parameters (draft for internal use) (Subm. in

MTR)

Annex Ac1 5 Annex Ac1 5 List of environmental impacts of lawn establishment and

maintenance (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac1 6 Management requirements of lawn areas (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac1 7 Results of inquiry to city gardeners (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac1 8 Results of inquiry to parish gardeners (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac1 9 Fertilizer application rates based on study with city and parish gardeners

(Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac1 10 Summary and conclusions (for project internal use of city and parish

gardener inquiry (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 1 Call for potential collaborators to establish demonstrations; (similar one

was sent to five cities ) (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 2 Poster (and a stand) at the Viherpäivät 2011 to encourage partners for

demonstrations (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 3 Project team visiting potential demonstration sites (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 4 Joint workshop for growing media producers, city gardeners and project

team (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 5 Planning the demonstrations (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 6 Plan for first year demonstrations (Subm. in MTR – mentioned also in

deliverables)

Annex Ac2 7 Plan for second year demonstrations (Subm. in MTR – mentioned also

in deliverables)

Annex Ac2 8 Specification of lawn and meadow demo established at Lepaa 2011

(Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 9 Specification of lawn demonstration establishment at MTT Jokioinen in

2011 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 10 Specification of sound wall and meadow demonstration at MTT

Jokioinen in 2011 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 11 Specification of "Leirintäalue" meadow demonstration in Pori city

2011 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 12 Specification of "Arena" lawn demonstration in Pori city 2011 (Subm.

in MTR)

Annex Ac2 13 Specification of "Lutakko" lawn demonstration in Jyväskylä city in

2011 (Subm. in MTR)


59

Annex Ac2 14 Specification of "Viitaniemi" meadow demonstration in Jyväskylä city

in 2011 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 15 Specification of "Punaportti" lawn demonstration in Hämeenlinna city

in 2011(Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 16 Specification of "Vaskipuisto" lawn demonstraion in Forssa city in

2012 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 17 Specification of "Marketanpuisto" lawn demonstration in Espoo in

2012 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 18 Specification of "Lostkeri" lawn demonstration in Pori city in 2012

(Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 19 Specification of "Loimalahti" lawn demonstration in Hämeenlinna city

in 2012 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 20 Specification of lawn demonstration established at HAMK at Lepaa in

2012 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 21 Specification of green roof demonstration at HAMK Lepaa in 2012

(Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 22 Specification of old lawn renovation demonstration at HAMK Lepaa in

2012 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 23 Specification of establishment of sod-turf production demonstration at

MTT Jokioinen (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 24 Specification of sod-turf production demonstration at MTT Ylistaro

(Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 25 Pictures of pot trials carried out at MTT Jokioinen (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac2 26 Study of the amenity areas established and maintained in Finland

Annex Ac2 27 Presentation of demonstration sites by powerpoint presentation with

photos and specifications of the demonstration

Annex Ac2 28 Demonstrations’ key results and experiences (In the Deliverables)

Annex Ac2 29 Environmental risk assessment report based on demonstrations and pot

trials

Annex Ac2 30 Info material to support updating Specifications

Annex Ac2_31 B.Sc. Thesis “Kompostoidut kasvualustat nurmikon perustamisessa”

(Summary: Composted recycling materials in lawn establishment) for the HAME

University of Applied Sciences by Evita Aattela. Spring 2013. In finnish. 47 p. Note:

complete thesis in electronic format. Summary pages in paper Annex. (Subm. in PP as

Ac5_24)

Annex Ac3 1a LCA tool published (in Finnish) (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac3 1b LCA tool published (in English) (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac3 4 M.Sc. Thesis “Puistoruohonleikkurin polttoainekulutus ja

kasvihuonekaasupäästöt” (Summary: The fuel consumption and GHG emissions from

lawn mowers used in parks) for University of Helsinki 20.9.2013 by Aaro Alaspää.

Summary of Thesis in paper and electronic format. (Subm in PP as Annex Ac5_25)

Annex Ac4 1 Cost-benefit analysis comparison when conventional or recycled

material is used in lawn area establishment (Draft version Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac4 2 Different composting processes and alternative treatments to sludge

Annex Ac4 3 Environmental and social cost-benefit analysis of substrate production

processes (Subm. in PP as Annex Ac5 23)

Annex Ac5 20 LIFE20 celebration day press release 15.5.2012 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 21 Project presentation at the EnviroGrow seminar 30.9.2010. (Sub. in

MTR)


60

Annex Ac5 52 Demonstrations poster at LEPAA fair 2011 (Subm. in MTR Ac5 22)

Annex Ac5 53 LCA tools poster at LEPAA fair 2011 (Subm. in MTR Ac5 23)

Annex Ac5 24 Cost benefit poster at LEPAA2011 fair 2011 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 25 Poster at Biolaitosyhdistyksen vuosiseminaari (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 26 Poster at Kaupunkisuunnitteluseminaari in Helsinki (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 27 Poster at Maataloustieteen Päivät 10-11.1.2012 Helsinki (Subm. in

MTR)

Annex Ac5 28 Poster at Viherpäivät 14-15.2.2012 in Tampere (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 29 Presentation at Viherpäivät 14-15.2.2012 Tampere (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 30 General presentation at worshop 1.2.2012 in Hämeenlinna (Subm. in

MTR)

Annex Ac5 31 LCA tool presentation at project workshop 1.2.2012 in Hämeenlinna

(Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 32 Mid-Term seminar programme (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 33 Mid-term seminar presentation "Specifications" (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 34 Mid-term seminar presentation "LCA tool" (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 35 Mid-term seminar presentation on demonstrations (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 36 Mid-term seminar presentation on greenhouse gas measurements

(Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 37 Mid-term seminar presentation on experiences to handle growing

media (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 38 Mid-term seminar presentation on fuel consumption of mowing (Subm.

in MTR)

Annex Ac5 39 Mid-term seminar presentation on "Cost benefit analysis" (Subm. in

MTR)

Annex Ac5 42 Application for stand for Green week in 2011 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 43 Participant list in the workshop 1.2.2012 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac5 44 Participant list in the Mid Term seminar 17.8.2012 (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac6 1 Pre-project start information occasion for project team and stakeholders

at LEPAA2010 fair – invitation (Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac6 8 List of Project team and Management Board meetings (updated) -

minutes available on request

Annex Ac7 1 A preliminary self-assessment report of the viability of the project

(Subm. in MTR)

Annex Ac7 2 A report of self-assessment of the viability of the project (Subm. in

MTR)

Annex Ac7 3 1st annual report of the effectiveness of the project actions (Subm. in

MTR)

Annex Ac7 4 2nd

Annual report on the effectiveness of the project actions. (Subm. in

PP as Annex Ac7_1)

Annex Ac7 5 3rd

Annual report on the effectiveness of the project actions.

6.3 Dissemination annexes

6.3.1 Layman's report

Annex Ac5 51


61

6.3.2 After-LIFE Communication plan

Annex Ac8 1

6.3.3 Other dissemination annexes

Annex Ac5 54 Power point presentation of 20 demonstration sites and specification of

their purpose in the project. (Subm in PP as Annex Ac2_1)

Annex Ac5 55 Presentation “Application of life-cycle assessment on establishment

and maintenance of amenity lawns” at the European Congress of the International

Federation of Park and Recreation Authorities (IFPRA) in Basel, Switzerland, 4-

6.9.2012. (Subm in PP Ac5 1)

Annex Ac5 56 Poster “Application of LCA for sustainable green cover management

using waste derived materials” at IFPRA Congress in Switzerland 4-6.9.2012. (Subm

in PP)

Annex Ac5 57 Poster “LCA-work package” at IFPRA Congress in Switzerland 4-

6.9.2012. (Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 58 Poster “Cost-benefit analysis” at IFPRA Congress in Switzerland 4-

6.9.2012. (Sub in PP)

Annex Ac5 59 Presentation “Elinkaarianalyysin soveltaminen kestävään,

kierrätysmateriaaleja hyödyntävään viherrakentamiseen” on 7.9.2012 for HAMK

students of sustainable production. (Sub in PP)

Annex Ac5 60 News release 7.9.2012. (Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 61 Poster “Challenges in applying LCA in landscaping” at SETAC Europe

18th

LCA Case Study Symposium Congress. 26-28.11.2012. Copenhagen, Denmark.

(Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 62 Presentation “Kierrätysmateriaalien käyttömahdollisuudet

viherrakentamisessa” at the annual seminar of the Biolaitosyhdistys. 15.11.2012.

(Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 63 NJF Biochar seminar abstract 14-15.2.12013. Helsinki, Finland. (Subm

in PP)

Annex Ac5 64 Poster “Biochar and establishment of lawns”. NJF Biochar seminar 14-

15.2013. Helsinki, Finland. (Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 65 Presentation at Malmi in Helsinki about LCA in landscaping project.

20.3.2013. (Sub in PP)

Annex Ac5 66 Poster “Kustannus-hyöty –työpaketti” at Viherpäivät 12-13.2.2013.

Tampere, Finland. (Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 67 Poster “Kierrrätysmateriaalien hyödyntäminen siirtonurmikko-

tuotannossa - kokeet Ylistarossa ja Jokioisilla”. Ylistaro research station as a visiting

site of the Farmari Agricultural Exhibition 3-4.7.2013. (Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 68 Poster ”Demoalueilta tietoa kestävän viherrakennusprosessin

elinkaariarvioinnin tueksi” at LEPAA2013 exhibition, Lepaa 14-16.8.2013. (Subm in

PP)

Annex Ac5 69 Poster ”Kustannus-hyötyanalyysi tuottaa kustannustietoa kestävän

viherrakennuksesprosessin arviointiin” at LEPAA2013 exhibition, Lepaa 14-

16.8.2013. (Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 70 Specification of the demonstration site at LEPAA2013 fair information

materials. (Subm in PP)


62

Annex Ac5 71 Specification of the showing times of the demonstration sites at

LEPAA2013 fair programme. (Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 72 Lists on persons familiarizing with the demos during special

presentation times at the LEPAA2013 fair. (Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 73 List of persons attending the sod turf demo at Farmari Agricultural

Exhibition site at Ylistaro 3-4.7.2013. (Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 74 Poster “Nurmikkoalueiden perustamisen ja hoidon energian kulutus

osana elinkaariarviointia”. City gardeners’s summer study days. Hyvinkää 22-

23.8.2013. (Subm in PP)

Annex Ac5 75 Lawn establishment educational powerpoint curriculum material

Annex Ac5 76 Lawn maintenance educational powerpoint curriculum material

Annex Ac5 77 Lawn quality educational powerpoint curriculum material

Annex Ac5 78 Environmental impacts in landscaping powerpoint curriculum material

Info booklets (1-3 pages each, available at website)

o Annex Ac5 79 Peat in substrate production

o Annex Ac5 80 Differences of peat and compost in substrate production’

o Annex Ac5 81 Composting methods

o Annex Ac5 82 Phosphorous trapping (binding) at waste water treatments

plants at its effect on phosphorous availability to plants

o Annex Ac5 83 Lawn mowing residues impact on nutrient cycling

o Annex Ac5 84 Info on nitrogen circle

Annex Ac5 85 News release in Finnish

Annex Ac5 86 News release in English

Annex Ac5 87 List of participants in the final seminar

Annex Ac5 88 Project’s website since 2013 on MTT& Luke server

Annex Ac5 89 Article on Cost benefit at Maataloustieteen Päivät seminar 2014

Annex Ac5 90 Article on lawn mowing at Maataloustieteen Päivät seminar 2014

(AgriScience days)

Annex Ac5 91 Poster on lawn mowing studies at MTP 8-9.1.2014 (AgriScience days)

Annex Ac5 92 Poster on cost benefit studies at MTP 8-9.1.2014 (AgriScience days)

Annex Ac5 93 Poster at Tietoprovinssi at Seinäjoki 19.9.2014 on Meadow sod turf

production.

Annex Ac5 94 Poster at Biolaitosyhdistys annual seminar 6-7.11.2013

Annex Ac5 95 Presentation of project in Tallin, Estonia 25.10.2013 in Estonian.

Annex Ac5 96 Presentation of LCA at Biolaitosyhdistys annual fair 30.10.2014

Annex Ac5 97 Presentation of LCA at SETAC conference in Novisad, Serbia,

20.11.2014

Annex Ac5 98 Presentation at Viherpäivät 12.2.2014 by Silvenius and Jaakkola

Annex Ac5 99 Presentation at Viheraluerakentajat seminar 27.11.2014 ON and MJ

Annex Ac5 100 Information of Vaskipuisto exhibition day at Forssa city’s home page

Annex Ac5 101 List of participants at Vaskipuisto presentation 26.8.2014

Annex Ac5 102 List of participants at Jokioinen demo presentation on 7.8.2014

Annex Ac5 103 Information of Ylistaro field day sod turf production demo

Annex Ac5 104 Life logos on purchased exquipment

Annex Ac5 105 Article in the Seutu Sanomat Newspaper 29.4.2015

Annex Ac5 106 Manuscript on LCA tool and environmental impacts in landscaping to

Viherympäristö magazine (submitted 29.4.2015)


63

6.4 Final table of indicators

Annex Ac6 8 Final Table of Outcome Indicators

_________________________________________________________________

7. Financial report and annexes

Annex Ac6 F1 Standard Payment Request and Benefiary’s Certificate

Annex Ac6 F2 Consolidated Cost Statement for the Project

Annex Ac6 F3 Financial identification of MTT Agrifood Research Finland

Annex Ac6 F4 MTT LIFE+ TES 1.9.2010-31.12.2014

Annex Ac6 F5VYL LIFE+ TES 1.9.2010-31.3.2013

Annex Ac6 F6 HAMK LIFE+ TES 1.9.2010-31.12.2014

Annex Ac6 F7 VIHER LIFE+ TES 1.9.2010-31.12.2014

Annex Ac6 F8 AGROP LIFE+ TES 1.9.2010-31.8.2010

Annex Ac6 F9 International travels

Annex Ac6 F10 Niemeläinen Oiva 2011 timesheet and salaries

Annex Ac6 F11 Leskinen Pekka 2011 timesheet and salaries

Annex Ac6 F12 Suomalainen Sari 2012 timesheet and salaries

Annex Ac6 F13 Jaakkola Mikko 2012 timesheet and salaries

Annex Ac6 F14 Riekkinen Minna 2012 timesheet and salaries

Annex Ac6 F15 2 percent rule check

Date post:	23-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times