Define the landscape boundary

After setting up your landscape initiative and completing the general information, the next step is to define the proposed boundary for the LandScale assessment. This boundary should be delineated in accordance with the following guidelines on landscape size, boundary type (jurisdiction, catchment/watershed, or stakeholder-defined landscape), and landscape composition. Definitions of the boundary types are provided below. The boundary must be documented as a spatial data file (.shp or .kml format).

Getting the boundary right is essential, as it influences all further assessment steps, including the selection of indicators and metrics, and the data collected to measure them. The boundary should be established with the most relevant landscape-level sustainability issues in mind and should reflect the needs and priorities of those who will use the assessment results, as well as the perspectives of local stakeholders.

A preliminary boundary may be established first, with final confirmation by the assessment team at the end of Step A.

Landscape size

An appropriate area for applying LandScale typically ranges from thousands to millions of hectares, depending on the context. It should be large enough to capture interdependencies between sustainability dimensions—such as ecosystems, human well-being, governance, and production—yet small enough to provide insights that can inform actions for improving sustainability.

[Insert screenshot of sample boundary]

The assessment team should aim for a balance where the landscape assessment offers a broad understanding of performance without exceeding the boundaries within which landscape stakeholders can effectively manage changes. The selected boundary should encompass multiple sustainability outcomes linked to multiple economic sectors and various interventions and investments.

LandScale assessments are generally not suited for single site-level projects smaller than the indicated size range. However, multi-sectoral, large-scale projects with broad impacts, such as infrastructure or major extractive initiatives, may fall within the scope of LandScale assessments.

Boundary delineation options

There are three options for delineating the landscape boundary:

Option 1: Jurisdiction

A jurisdiction represents a political-administrative unit where government authority is exercised. Jurisdictional boundaries, typically second or third-level administrative divisions such as municipalities, districts, counties, or cantons, are well-suited to the size range recommended for LandScale assessments (thousands to millions of hectares, depending on the context).

Note that the terminology and size of second and third-level jurisdictions vary across countries. For instance, municipalities in Brazil are often much larger than cantons in Costa Rica, although both are classified as second-level jurisdictions.

Using a jurisdictional boundary can facilitate collaboration with government bodies operating in the area. It also makes accessing publicly available datasets—particularly socio-economic data relevant to LandScale indicators and metrics—easier, as such data is often reported at the jurisdictional level. Jurisdiction-based assessments can support government initiatives by providing information to monitor impacts, manage resources, and attract investment.

Option 2: Catchment or watershed

A catchment (also known as a drainage basin or watershed) is an area where all precipitation flows to a common outlet, representing a natural hydrological unit. This boundary type is particularly useful for understanding water resource management, flow, and quality issues. It is especially relevant for LandScale users reliant on surface water, such as agricultural producers, extractive industries, government water authorities, or hydroelectric power suppliers.

Catchment boundaries can vary in size but typically align with the recommended landscape size for LandScale assessments, which is in the range of thousands to millions of hectares, depending on the context. Depending on the region, this could include entire catchments or sub-catchments.

Option 3: Stakeholder-defined landscapes

This option allows users to define landscapes based on locally relevant combinations of ecological, political, economic, and socio-cultural dimensions. A stakeholder-defined landscape may be appropriate for users assessing sustainability performance over areas that do not correspond to jurisdictional or catchment/watershed boundaries.

Examples include companies evaluating sourcing areas, governments assessing the impact of large-scale infrastructure projects, or investors examining sustainability risks in specific regions. The stakeholder-defined boundary should ideally encompass key environmental, social, and economic features—including protected areas, High Conservation Values, major water bodies, human settlements, and significant production or processing facilities—that influence or are impacted by activities within the landscape.

A stakeholder-defined landscape boundary should not have gaps or discontinuities (i.e., multiple unconnected areas). Additionally, unless strongly justified, the boundary should avoid overly contorted or irregular shapes. For example, the boundary should not create narrow, elongated areas of excluded land ('fingers') that extend into included areas, as this can complicate data collection and assessment processes.

To ensure that all significant sustainability features are included, the assessment team may conduct an adjacency analysis to refine the boundary.

Recommended stakeholder input

Stakeholder input should focus on delineating the landscape boundary and identifying any limitations associated with this boundary.

• If the boundary was already pre-defined through a participatory process (e.g., by an active landscape partnership), further input may not be necessary unless stakeholders wish to revisit the boundary in the context of the LandScale assessment.

• For new boundary definitions, it is recommended to engage stakeholders early e.g., government, companies, NGOs, local communities, producer groups) to address potential limitations and ensure the boundary reflects their interests and needs. This is especially important for stakeholder-defined boundaries.

Input can be collected through planned stakeholder meetings, ongoing multi-stakeholder processes or partnerships, or bilateral/small group interviews.

Boundary selection considerations

Single jurisdictions and catchments offer the advantage of being pre-defined and generally accepted as land management units. However, the assessment team may also opt to establish a stakeholder-defined boundary tailored to the specific context and objectives of the assessment. Regardless of the boundary type, the assessment team must document the rationale behind the boundary selection.

When defining the landscape boundary, the assessment team should consider how different delineations may impact data availability.

• Jurisdictions: Official government and statistical data are often more readily accessible for jurisdictions compared to catchments or other boundary types. This includes socio-economic, demographic, and governance-related data.

• Catchments/watersheds: Catchment/watershed delineations may provide better access to water quality and flow data, making them particularly valuable in contexts where water resource management is a priority.

• Stakeholder-defined landscapes: Stakeholder-defined landscapes that do not encompass multiple adjacent jurisdictions or catchments are likely to present the greatest challenges in terms of data availability. If such a boundary is being considered, the assessment team is encouraged to review the requirements and processes for Step B to anticipate and address potential data limitations before finalizing the boundary selection.

By carefully evaluating these factors, the assessment team can ensure that the selected boundary not only meets the assessment objectives but also provides reliable data for informed decision-making.