[en] This report documents the landscape modelling test cases implemented in the fall of 2005, complemented in 2006. The objective of the report is to illustrate the application of the landscape modelling methodology, to investigate the important factors of influence and to clarify methodological aspects. The results of this analysis are intended to serve as a basis for future assessments. Landscape modelling represents an approach for estimating doses to inhabitants of a landscape consisting of several interacting ecosystems which are affected by the contamination from potential radionuclide releases from a deep geological repository. From the model outputs, Landscape Dose Conversion Factors (LDFs) are calculated. These represent, for each radionuclide of concern, an estimate of the equilibrium dose arising from a constant unit release of activity into the landscape objects. Modelling is undertaken in the current report for static landscapes corresponding to future landscape configurations forecasted for four different points in time. The results of this modelling are not yet suitable for practical application to estimate doses which could result from the planned repository at the Olkiluoto site. To suit this eventual purpose, refinements of the modelling and reduced uncertainty of the important parameters used in the models will be necessary. The current report intends rather to investigate the important factors influencing modelled future doses arising from the planned repository and to clarify methodological aspects. Notwithstanding the restrictions of the current modelling, important conclusions already can be drawn from the results presented in this report. Several methodological aspects are addressed in this report. These are, in particular, the impact of the landscape configurations on the resulting dose estimates, the importance of model parameters and assumptions for the assessment results, the database for radionuclides requiring consideration, the importance of the accumulation of radionuclides in certain landscape objects, the importance of different release points and their spatial distribution and the effects of boundary conditions for the release (geosphere-biosphere interface). Conclusions derived with regard to these issues in the current report will require to be reviewed based on results obtained with improved models and data. In particular, it will have to be investigated what effect a dynamic change of the landscape as opposed to the static consideration in this report has on the derived conclusions. Despite this necessity for review, it is believed that the derived conclusions will remain valid at least qualitatively. (orig.)