Boundary limitations and adjacency analysis

Before finalizing the landscape boundary, it is recommended to conduct an adjacency analysis to identify any potential limitations of the proposed boundary and address them appropriately. This process may involve expanding or adjusting the boundary to incorporate critical adjacent areas or to account for spillover effects between the landscape and its surroundings. The results of this analysis should clearly document any potential limitations, ensuring that users of the assessment results are fully informed.

[Insert screenshot of sample adjacency analysis]

If a formal adjacency analysis is not conducted, the assessment team is still encouraged to perform a desktop visual review of a reasonable adjacent area (e.g., a 1,000-hectare buffer) using available maps. This review aims to identify potential boundary limitations, particularly in stakeholder-defined landscapes. The assessment team should look for factors such as the presence of protected areas, extractive activities nearby, or potential gaps in connectivity within the landscape.

While LandScale does not reject boundaries with documented limitations, these must be transparently reported in the landscape assessment to clarify how they may affect the results. In such cases, the team can skip adjacency analysis-related questions but must complete the final 'boundary limitations' question.

Analyze adjacent areas relative to the proposed boundary

It is recommended to extend the analysis at least 10 kilometers beyond the edge of the proposed boundary. The LandScale platform offers a tool to delineate this buffer. Through the use of GIS or online resources such as Google Earth, the assessment team should visually identify key land uses and features in the adjacent areas (e.g., protected areas, human settlements, major production or processing sites). Once identified, the relationship between these adjacencies and the proposed landscape boundary should be analyzed in three primary dimensions:

Impacts on the adjacent areas

Determine whether activities within the proposed landscape boundary have actual or potential impacts on adjacent areas. For example, these may include:

• Environmental impacts such as runoff, pollution, habitat fragmentation, deforestation.

• Social impacts such as employment hubs where workers live in adjacent areas, displacement of local communities, or impacts on livelihoods.

If significant impacts are identified, consider whether adjustments to the boundary or additional mitigation measures are necessary to address these interactions.

Impacts from the adjacent areas

Assess whether activities or features in adjacent areas have actual or potential impacts on the proposed landscape boundary. For example, these may include:

• Major infrastructure such as roads, bridges, or other construction that could affect land use and accessibility.

• Mineral or hydrocarbon extraction sites, as their operations may risk environmental degradation or resource depletion.

• Pollution sources such as factories, waste disposal sites, or other sources of contamination that could affect air, soil, or water quality.

The assessment team may choose to expand the boundary to include such areas if these impacts are significant. However, this is not obligatory and may not always be advisable. For instance, while an adjacent city might have impacts on the surrounding landscape, the team may opt to exclude it if the focus of the assessment is on rural sustainability.

Sensitive resources within the adjacent areas

Identify sensitive resources in adjacent areas. For example, these may include:

• Ecologically sensitive resources such as High Conservation Values, fragile ecosystems, and habitats for endangered species.

• Socially sensitive areas such as Indigenous territories or populations, areas of high poverty, and cultural heritage areas.

If activities in the proposed landscape affect these resources or pose risks of negative impacts to them, it is recommended that the landscape boundary be expanded to include the areas containing these sensitive resources.

Additionally, if excluding adjacent areas would leave out marginalized or vulnerable groups whose livelihoods or well-being are tied to the proposed landscape (e.g., Indigenous peoples, permanent or migrant farmworkers, ethnic minorities, or populations with high levels of poverty), it is likewise recommended that the boundary be expanded to include such populations.

Consider trends or predicted future changes

After analyzing the proposed boundary, the assessment team should examine trends or predicted changes that may significantly impact the landscape and its sustainability over time. This could include factors such as agricultural expansion or urban development that might necessitate a larger landscape delineation for effective monitoring. A well-delineated boundary should be expected to remain valid for a decade or more, minimizing the need for redefinition in future assessments.

Example: Adjacency analysis leads to boundary expansion in a multi-jurisdictional Peruvian landscape

In the Lamas landscape of Peru, the adjacency analysis prompted the assessment team to expand the initial boundary to include two additional districts. The team’s primary goal was to halt agricultural expansion that had led to deforestation and a loss of biodiversity, reducing agricultural productivity.

The original landscape boundary, defined by jurisdictional lines, included four districts: Pinto Recodo, Alonso de Alvarado, Lamas, and Tabalosos. This approach was chosen to facilitate data availability and to align with commitments from local district mayors to participate in the project. However, the adjacency analysis revealed that 75% of the Cordillera Escalera Conservation Area—critical for providing water and ecosystem services—lay within the adjacent district of San Roque de Cumbaza. To properly monitor agricultural encroachment and protect this area, San Roque de Cumbaza was added to the boundary.

Additionally, the Shanao district, located between Lamas and Tabalosos, was included to ensure landscape continuity. This adjustment allowed for a more cohesive and effective assessment, capturing key ecosystem impacts and aligning with the partnership's goals.

Document findings and outcomes

The final step of the adjacency analysis is to clearly document the findings and whether any adjustments were made to the initial landscape boundary. If changes were made, both the original and revised versions of the boundary will be maintained on the LandScale platform. The assessment team should provide a clear explanation for any changes, outlining the nature of the adjustments and the reasons behind them.

If no changes were made, it is equally important to document the analysis findings that support maintaining the original boundary. Any limitations identified during the adjacency analysis, including those related to adjacent areas, must be clearly recorded. This ensures transparency and helps users of the assessment interpret the results accurately.

If boundary adjustments are necessary based on the adjacency analysis, the assessment team should make revisions, considering the landscape's size, types, and composition. Factors outlined in define the landscape boundary should be taken into account when making adjustments. Any changes made after Step A validation must go through the validation process again.