Scale criterion

The scale criterion evaluates whether the landscape initiative operates at a scale that allows it to influence the systemic conditions underlying its sustainability goals, such as through land use planning or policy reform. The initiative's scale should also enable effective area-level management through a multi-stakeholder governance process. While landscape initiatives typically cover hundreds of thousands of hectares, they can be larger or, in some cases, smaller—though they are usually at least 10,000 hectares. Therefore, the landscape boundary must be clearly delineated and appropriately scaled.

Documentation requirements

To meet the scale sub-criteria, the following materials must be submitted through the LandScale platform for validation:

• Landscape boundary in .shp or .kml format.

• Boundary type, selected from the following options:

  • Jurisdiction.

  • Catchment/watershed.

  • Stakeholder-defined landscape.

• Evidence to demonstrate that the boundary is appropriately scaled to support the landscape initiative's goals. Acceptable evidence may include:

  • A justification statement explaining why the boundary is appropriate for addressing relevant sustainability goals.

  • Documentation of stakeholder engagement in defining the boundary.

  • Alignment with existing governance structures, ecosystem functions, or socio-economic conditions.

  • An adjacency analysis conducted as part of the LandScale assessment process (if applicable).

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 landscape

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.

Validation criteria

Validation will confirm whether the following requirements have been fulfilled:

• All required documentation has been submitted via the platform.

• The landscape boundary is submitted in the required format (.shp or .kml).

• The boundary covers at least 10,000 hectares or the size is otherwise justified.

• The boundary type is indicated as one of the provided options (jurisdiction, catchment/watershed, stakeholder-defined landscape).

• The rationale for the selected boundary is clearly explained and supported by at least one of the following:

  • A justification statement demonstrating how the boundary supports the initiative’s sustainability goals.

  • Documentation of stakeholder engagement in defining the boundary.

  • Alignment with governance structures, ecosystem functions, or socio-economic conditions.

  • An adjacency analysis conducted as part of the LandScale assessment (if applicable).