LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

Transcription

1 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report LIFE Project Number LIFE09 ENV/FI/ 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 location Project Data Project start date: 01/09/2010 Project end date: 30/08/2014 Extension date: 31/12/2014 Total Project duration (in months) Total budget 863, Total eligible budget 855, EU contribution: 420, (%) of total costs 48.7 (%) of eligible costs months (including Extension of 4 months) Name Beneficiary Contact person Postal address Visit address Beneficiary Data MTT Agrifood Research Finland (from Natural Resources Institute Finland) Mr Oiva Niemeläinen Luke Planta, FI Jokioinen, Finland Luke Planta, FI Jokioinen, Finland Telephone ; direct Fax: - Project Website oiva.niemelainen@luke.fi / kirjaamo@luke.fi LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

2 1. List of contents 1. List of contents Executive Summary Introduction Description of the management system Technical part Technical progress, per task Action 1 Specifications Action 2 Demonstrations Action 3 LCA tools Action 4 Cost-benefit Analysis Action 7 Monitoring Action 8 After Life Communication Plan Dissemination actions Objectives Dissemination activities by Actions Evaluation of Project Implementation Analysis of long-term benefits Comments on the financial report Summary of Costs Incurred Accounting system Partnership arrangements Auditor's report/declaration Annexes Administrative annexes Technical annexes Dissemination annexes Layman's report Final table of indicators Financial report and annexes 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 ) 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 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 (N 2 O) 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 and ISO 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 m 3 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 % 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 22 nd 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 in conjunction with the LEPAA2012 fair and the Final seminar was arranged 9 th 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 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 ,93 with EU contribution ,00. MTT Agrifood Research Finland (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) since ) was coordinating beneficiary and HAMK University of Applied Sciences and Viherrakenne Jaakkola Oy the other beneficiaries during the whole project period as Agropolis Limited ( ) and VYL The Finnish Association of Landscape Industries ( ) 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 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

8 31,5 % during (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 CO 2 and other gaseous emissions (CH 4, N 2 O, NH 3, 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 significant 1. 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, LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 onward in the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) as MTT Agrifood Finland merged on 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 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 VYL operates by arranging exhibitions and periodic events; providing Internet services ( 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 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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) ( 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) ( 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 (Annex Ac6 2). Its operation was completely ceased and the company went to bankrupt in 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 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

11 Organogramme of the management board. Chair: Director Aarne Kurppa; Harri Huhta, Markku Järvenpää, MTT Representative from VYL Pekka Leskinen until Representative from HAMK K. Hänninen/ Heikki Peltoniemi Representative from VIHER Mikko Jaakkola Representative from AGROP Juha Pirkkamaa until Experts (Internal Monitoring Pekka Manninen) and other experts participate in the meeting as experts. Secretary of the Management Board Project manager Oiva Niemeläinen, MTT Project team structure. Chair: Project manager Action 6: Management Oiva Niemeläinen, MTT Action 1: Specifications Responsible Sari Suomalainen & Maire Rannikko, HAMK Action 2: Demonstration Responsible Oiva Niemeläinen, MTT Action 3: LCA tools Responsible Sirpa Kurppa, MTT From Frans Silvenius, MTT Action 4: Cost benefit Responsible Juha Pirkkamaa & Minna Riekkinen, AGROP From Sirpa Kurppa MTT Action 5: Dissemination Responsible Pekka Leskinen, VYL From Oiva Niemeläinen, MTT Representative from Beneficiary VIHER participated in the meetings Mikko Jaakkola Action 7: Monitoring Responsible (Pasi Voutilainen until ; Pekka Manninen from , MTT LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 ( ) 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 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 and the Amendment request was approved for signing on 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 and meetings on: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and and in addition an annual feed back meetings ( and ). 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: ; ; , , , , , and meeting on which was completed on 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 ( ) Mid-Term Report ( ) Request for Amendment of the Grant Agreement ( ) Progress Report 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 1 st 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 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, 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 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 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 30 th 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 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, 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 The electronic signatures were accepted to be valid signatures under certain conditions as specified in the follow up letter dated July 12 th 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 to was send by to Desk officer Mr. Federico Nogara on and on Mr Nogara informed by I agree with postponing your LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

14 MTR, as you suggested, to Oct 30th, 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 16 th of November 2012 and advised on the Project Agreement Amendment procedure. Mr. Pekka Hänninen visited the project on 12 th 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 11 th 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 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 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 15 th of May by 20 th 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

15 4.1.3 Action 1 Specifications Name of the Deliverable or Milestone 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. 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 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 Deadline Categor Status y D Completed M Documents produced for project internal use 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), LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

16 about lawn quality issues (Annex Ac5 77) and on landscaping s environmental impacts (Annex Ac5 78) Action 2 Demonstrations Name of the Deliverable, Indicator of progress or Milestone Plan for projects first year demonstration establishment: Annex Ac2 6 Plan for projects 2 nd summer establishments Annex Ac2 7 Report of demonstration results and experiences Annex Ac2 28 First summer demonstrations founded and published indicators 1-5 completed and 6 and 9 partially completed Annex Ac and Ac2 27 as a combined presentation. 2nd summer demonstrations founded and published, Annex Ac2 7; indicators 6-9 For all demonstrations: Annexes Ac of the specifications of demonstrations and Ac2 27 as a combined presentation. Deadline Category Status D Was produced from May to October in 2011 as work progressed D Was produced from May to October in 2012 as work D progressed. Completed at the end of the project M Nine demonstrations established on five locations by M Ten demonstrations established by on and nine in 2012 and one in 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

17 Fig 1. Planning a demonstration site in Pori in Fig 2. Planning a site in Jyväskylä in Fig 3. Discussing suitable sites in Forssa with VIHER Mikko Jaakkola and city gardener Leila Grönholm in 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 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 Ac 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). LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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). 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. 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 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 1 Jokioinen Jokioinen Jokioinen Jokioinen LEPAA LEPAA LEPAA LEPAA LEPAA Pori 2011 Kirjurinlu oto Demo Purpose Main value for the project Lawn establishment & maintenance (Annex Ac2_9) Meadow management (Annex Ac2_10) Noise wall management (Annex Ac2_10) Sod turf productions (Annex Ac2_23) Lawn establishment& maintenance (Annex Ac2_8) Meadow establishment (Annex Ac2_8) Green roof demo (Annex Ac2_21) Lawn maintenance (Annex Ac2_22) Lawn establishment & species (Annex Ac2_20) Lawn establishment, Arena Demonstrate use of recycled materials in growing media & effect of seed mixtures Effect of use recycled materials in meadow production Demonstrate use of composted material at noise wall Demonstrate use of recycled materials for sod turf production Demonstrate use of recycled materials in growing media & effect of seed mixtures Effect of use recycled materials in meadow production Demonstration use of growing media with recycled materials as a growing media for green roofs Showing use of recycled materials in lawn renovation & maintenance Demonstrate use of recycled materials in growing media & effect of seed mixtures Demonstrate use of recycled materials in high level site Measurement data for calculations Promoting use of recycled materials Biodiversity assessment Promoting use of recycled materials Promoting use of recycled materials Measurement data for calculations; Dissemination Promoting biodiversity Dissemination Promoting used of recycled materials Dissemination Measurement data for calculations; Promotion Measurement data for calculations; Dissemination Promoting use of recycled materials LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

20 11 Pori 2011 Kirjurinlu oto 12 Pori 2012 Lotskeri 13 Jyväskylä 2011 Lutakko 14 Jyväskylä Hämeenlin na 2011 Punaportti 16 Hämeenlin na 2012 Loimalahd entie 17 Forssa Espoo Ylistaro Ylistaro 2013 (Annex Ac2_12) Meadow establishment, Leirintäalue (Annex Ac2_11) Lawn establishment & maintenance (Annex Ac2_18) Lawn establishment (Annex Ac2_13) Meadow management (Annex Ac2_14) Lawn establishment (Annex Ac2_15) Lawn establishment at the roadside (Annex Ac2_19) Lawn establishment & maintenance (Annex Ac2_16) Lawn establishment with seed and sod turf (Annex Ac2_17) Sod turf production (Annex Ac2_23) Sod turf production of a flower meadow (Annex Ac5_48) Demonstrate economic use of recycled materials for lawn establishment Demonstrate seed mixtures Demonstrate use of recycled materials in lawn management Demonstrate use of recycled material in a high quality site Effect of recycled materials for meadow maintenance Growth media and seed mixtures Growth media with recycled materials and slow growing seed mixture Growth media, seed mixture, sod turf utilization Recycled materials and sod turf & seed establishment Used of recycled materials in sod turf production Sod turfs from the Pori meadow demonstration were transplanted to Ylistaro Promoting recycled materials and Biodiversity Promoting recycled materials and testing plant material Promoting use of recycled materials at prime city center location Promoting use of recycled materials Promoting use of recycled materials Promoting and data production Dissemination Promoting Data production Dissemination Promoting use of recycled materials Dissemination Promoting use of recycled materials Dissemination 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 15. Measurements underway how seed mixture and substrate effect the growth of grass in Jokioinen. Fig 16. Biodiversity observations underway at a meadow demonstration in Pori. Establishing the Vaskipuisto demonstration in Forssa on 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 ). Data of demonstration activity has been compiled and results were presented in the presentations at the work shop and at the Mid-Term seminar and in the Final Seminar 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 gpssystem 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 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. 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

24 4.1.3 Action 3 LCA tools Name of the Deliverable or Milestone Deadline Category Status LCA tool for waste-derived substrates green D Completed. surfaces produced (Annex Ac3 2 in Finnish and Ac3 3 in English) LCA tool published (first version) indicator 1 completed (Annex Ac3 1a and 1b) LCA tool summarised indicators M See ure 1 and (Annex Ac3 1) M Completed for 5 3 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

25 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. 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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/dm 3 1 Compost content in substrate, volume-% 50 Peat content in substrate, volume-% 10 Mineal soil content in substrate, volume-% 40 Density of compost, kg/dm 3 0,5 Total nitrogen content in compost, kg/m 3 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 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 22. Measuring fuel consumption in substrate levelling. Fig 23. Fuel consumption measurement underway of seed bed preparation tillage. Fig 24. Fuel consumption on lawn mowing was carried out with various machinery and on various types of lawns. 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 m 3 and around 2000 tons of substrates for one hectare lawn area. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

28 Table 3. Contents of the pilot substrates in mass-%:s Compost, % Peat, % Mineral soils, % Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate Substrate 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* Substrate Substrate Substrate *mass %:s Densities of substrates 1 and 3 were 1000 kg/m 3 and substrate kg/m 3. 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/m 2 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. 3 Soluble P, kg/m 3 Table 6. Properties of compost in pilot-cases. (Substrate 4 has no compost). Densities, Tot-N kg/m 3 Soluble N, kg/m 3 Tot-P, kg/m kg/m 3 Compost ,4 1,2 4 0,05 Compost ,36 0,76 0,03 Compost ,995 8,2 0,039 Compost ,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 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 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 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 N-loss in composting 50 % of total N in sewage Boldrin et al 2010 sludge or biowaste N 2 O-N-emissions of composting 1.5 % of N-loss in composting Boldrin et al 2010 CH 4 -emisions of 1.96 g/kg biowaste or IPCC 2006, composting sewage sludge EASEWASTE 2007 NH 3 -N-emissions of 2 % of N-loss in Boldrin et al 2010 composting composting Establishment of lawn areas Thickness of substrate 20 cm Paalijärvi et al Fuel consumption of earth moving and spreading the substrate Fuel consumption of soil tillage and sowing Maintenance of lawn areas Fuel consumption of mowing Fertilizer application, spring Fertilizer application, autumn Lawn without additional fertilization for compostbased substrates 86 l/ha Field experiments 66 l/ha Field experiments 5 l/ha Field experiments NPK kg/ha Estimation of project group NK kg/ha Estimation of project group 10 years Estimation of project group N-leach 13 % of N input Kangas & Salo 2010 P-leach 5 % of P-input Kangas & Salo 2010 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 N 2 O 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

31 Substrate 1, Compost 55 % Substrate, Compost 40 % Substrate 3, Compost 9 % Substrate 4, Compost 0 % 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 Substrate 1, Compost 55 % Substrate 2, Compost 40 % Substrate 3, Compost 9 % Substrate 4, Compost 0 % Substrate 5, Compost 55% Fig 27. Acidification impact (gae/m2 lawn area) of the life cycle of lawn areas using different pilot substrates. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 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 %, 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

34 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report Action 4 Cost-benefit Analysis Name of the Deliverable or Milestone or Report Cost-benefit report on use of waste to waste-derived green surfaces. Annex Ac4 1 (1 st version) and Final at Annex4 4. Cost-benefit analysis, progress indicator 1 (Annex Ac4 2). Cost-benefit analysis published; indicators 2 and 3 Deadline Catego ry D Status Completed M The cost-benefit analysis of the construction and maintenance of lawns by traditional and the method using recyclable material 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 , 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 m 2. 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). LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

35 Fig 29. Data collection in costbenefit included discussions and visits e.g. to substrater producers (Visit to Envor Biotech). 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 A. Planning expenses h/m 2 Cost /m 2 h/m 2 Cost /m 2 Lawn construction utilizing recycled materials direct labour cost: /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 /m 3 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 h/m 2 Expenses /m 2 h/m 2 Expenses /m 2 VAT) 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 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

36 C. Maintenance costs for 10 year period from establishment Traditional lawn establishment Establishment utilizing recycled materials Material expenses /m 3 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/m 2 /m 2 times/year h/m 2 /m 2 man & machine work 42, ,001 0, ,001 0,97 /h (including side costs, without VAT) Direct labour costs, years 4 10 from establishment man & machine work 42,00 /h (including side costs, without VAT) 20 0,001 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 /m 2 b) Difference arise in construction costs: the costs in the method using recycled materials in substrate were 5.96 /m 2 compared to 7.64 /m 2 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 /m 2 /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 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 CO 2 -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). LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

38 4.1.5 Action 7 Monitoring Name of the Deliverable or Milestone or Report Deadline Category Status Monitoring report delivered (Annex Ac7_6) 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 1 st 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 selfassessment report, 31 st December 2010 (Annex Ac7 1), Self-assessment report of the viability of the project, 14 th April 2011 (Annex Ac7 2), and 1 st Annual Report of Effectiveness of the Project Actions (Annex Ac7 3), respectively, has been reviewed (Annex Ac7 4 and (Annex Ac7 5) and Final report on (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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 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. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

40 4.2 Dissemination actions Name of the Deliverable, Milestone or Deadline Categor Report y Status A project website (Annex Ac5 1) D Operational on Notice boards to demonstration sites , D In the MTR: 14 (up to 20) (seventeen which covered the all notice boards at 8 demonstration 20 demonstration sites locations for 18 Annexes Ac5 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 26, 45, 46, 47 and 48. demos reported. All demos had notice board info. Brochures of project (three language version) Annex Ac5 14, 15 and 16. Articles for press (10) Annex Ac5 17, 18, 19, 40, 41, 49, 22, 88, 89, 105, 106 Dissemination checkpoint** 5; indicators 1, 2 Annex Ac5 1 and Annex Ac5 88 Mid-term seminar indicators 2,4,5,6 Annex Ac5 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44 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 Layman s report published, ; indicator 3 Annex Ac D Completed 2011; reported in MTR ; amended to D Activity will continue in After Life phase M Reported in MTR. Website moved to MTT server in M Mid Term seminar on in conjuction to Lepaa2012 Fair amended to amended to D & M D & M Reported in MTR. Arranged on at HAMK in Hämeenlinna. Proceedings on website. Delivered with the Final Report. Available at the website 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 LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

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 costbenefit 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 (Annex Ac2 30, 31 and 43). Project brochures were produced in Finnish, English and Swedish (Annex Ac5 14, 15 and 16). Project web-site ( (Annex Ac5 1) was opened 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). LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

42 Dissemination activities by Actions 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) 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 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 Vaskipuisto establishment was used for LIFE20 Anniversary celebration campaign on 22 nd of May The demonstrations were exhibited to wide audience especially at the annual three-day Lepaa Fairs in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 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 ). LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report

43 Fig 33. Visiting stake holders at site planning at Marketanpuisto exhibition Park in Espoo. Fig 34. Celebrating LIFE20 at Vaskipuisto establishment in Forssa. Fig 35. Exhibiting GHGmeasurements 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 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 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 (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 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 Costbenefit was produced for Kekkilä Mustankorkea substrate production site in Jyväskylä. LIFE09 ENV FI LCA IN LANDSCAPING Final Report