Select indicators

This section outlines the process and requirements for selecting indicators, applicable to all Validated by LandScale users. The Powered by LandScale experience offers greater flexibility in using the LandScale assessment framework and does not have specific indicator selection requirements. Nevertheless, Powered by LandScale users are strongly encouraged to follow the same indicator selection process to define an assessment scope that holistically reflects landscape sustainability. More information on both plans (Validated by LandScale and Powered by LandScale) can be found on our pricing webpage.

Note that the workflow is structured to allow you to select indicators and their associated metrics simultaneously. This means you can select an indicator, choose which metrics you want to measure for that indicator, and then proceed to the next indicator. For simplicity, the guidelines separate the steps into two sections. Access the guidelines for metric selection here.

[Insert screenshot of indicator/metric selection]

Types of indicators

LandScale defines two types of indicators: core and additional. The table below provides the definitions and requirements for each type. Users also have the option to define custom indicators, tagged as 'user-added,' which are supplementary to the LandScale-defined indicators within the assessment framework.

Indicator category	Description and requirements
Core	Topics essential to holistic landscape sustainability and applicable in all contexts. These indicators are strongly advised for all Validated by LandScale assessments and cannot be edited. Any deselection must be adequately justified. Examples of core indicators include: 1.1.1 Effective conservation and protection of natural ecosystems. 2.1.2 Health and nutrition. 3.1.1 Land tenure
Additional	Sustainability topics that may present significant risks or opportunities in some landscapes but not others. These indicators are optional, though recommended in landscapes where they are relevant to the assessment’s goals. They are included at the discretion of the assessment team and cannot be edited. Examples of additional indicators include: 1.2.4 Biodiversity habitat restoration. 2.2.5 Workers' rights. 3.1.3 Resource tenure. 4.1.3 Adoption of sustainable land management practices.
Custom ('user-added')	Indicators not currently included in the LandScale assessment framework but chosen to reflect the specific interests or objectives of the assessment owner and/or landscape stakeholders. These indicators are defined and included at the discretion of the assessment team. User-added indicators can be validated by LandScale for an additional fee, contingent on the team having the necessary expertise. This determination is made upon submission of Step B. If LandScale lacks the required expertise to validate a user-added indicator, the indicator can still be utilized within the assessment on the platform but will not be validated and will not appear on the public profile.

Deselect or defer core indicators

Core indicators are preselected by default for all LandScale assessments to ensure a holistic evaluation of landscape sustainability. However, during the indicator selection process, assessment teams may choose to deselect core indicators under specific circumstances, such as when they are deemed out of scope for the assessment, or if there are constraints related to funding or capacity. Any core indicator that is deselected must include a justification explaining the rationale for its exclusion.

[Insert screenshot of core indicator deselection]

Additionally, upon reviewing the availability of data resources for each core indicator and its associated metrics, if no suitable data resources are found to measure the indicator, it may be marked as data deficient. Indicators marked as data deficient will not require a result input for the current assessment.

Select additional indicators

Additional indicators capture aspects of sustainability that may be relevant in some landscapes but not in others. These indicators are optional and may be selected based on the specific context of the landscape, the goals of the assessment, and input from stakeholders.

To determine whether an additional indicator should be included in the assessment, it is recommended that the assessment team conduct an applicability analysis and stakeholder consultation. The adjacency analysis process involves evaluating the relevance of the indicator, generally based on the following two criteria:

1. Existing status: Are there existing and significant negative impacts on ecosystem health or human well-being related to this indicator? Might this indicator reveal significant contributions to sustainability from ongoing actions or investments (e.g., occurring or planned restoration actions)?

2. Trends and drivers: Are there trends (e.g., increasing resource scarcity, competition) or drivers (e.g., market forces, government policy shifts) that suggest the likely development of future risks or opportunities related to the indicator?

The Landscape-dependent Indicators Criteria Table outlines examples of information sources and provides criteria to guide the applicability analysis. Additionally, the assessment team is encouraged to seek input from local stakeholders and experts who can provide insights into sustainability challenges or opportunities that are not well-documented in published materials.

Recommended stakeholder input

It is recommended that the assessment team consult with landscape stakeholders to:

• Identify any additional indicators of particular interest to landscape stakeholders (linked to the assessment objectives).

• Inform the applicability assessment for additional indicators.

Stakeholder consultation is particularly important when determining whether an indicator's applicability to the landscape is inconclusive, ensuring that the decision is based on a broad range of perspectives.

Example: Selecting additional indicators for a Costa Rican landscape

The landscape located in the watershed surrounding Costa Rica's capital, San José, provides water for hundreds of thousands of people and supports some of the nation’s largest industries. The Agua Tica Water Fund, a multi-sector collaboration, implements conservation and regeneration activities to safeguard water quality and quantity in this region.

The objectives of conducting a LandScale assessment in this landscape were twofold:

1. To track and communicate progress at landscape level toward improving socioeconomic and environmental outcomes.

2. To define common goals with other landscape stakeholders—such as coffee and meat producers not currently involved in the water fund—to facilitate greater alignment and collaboration.

To achieve these objectives, it was critical to involve all relevant stakeholders in the indicator selection process. Thus, IUCN, the lead organization for this assessment, used a phased approach that combined desk-based research with multi-stakeholder engagement.

First, the assessment team conducted a literature review to identify existing data and key sustainability challenges within the landscape. They also held interviews with representatives from key organizations, including the Ministry of Environment, water department, Forestry and Climate Change Fund, Ministry of Agriculture, Coffee Institute of Costa Rica, and cooperatives for coffee and milk producers. These activities enriched their understanding of challenges and trends established in the landscape overview.

Next, the assessment team drafted a preliminary list of additional indicators, including justifications for those deemed inconclusive or not applicable. This selection was presented to Agua Tica for feedback. The refined list of indicators was then presented to other landscape stakeholders through bilateral meetings and an online survey. This process aimed to validate applicability justifications and identify stakeholder-specific interests.

Based on stakeholder input, the selection of additional indicators evolved. For example, while the indicator on input use efficiency in agricultural, agroforestry, and tree production systems was initially deemed irrelevant, it was included in the final selection due to its importance to coffee producers and government officials. In preparation for metric selection, the stakeholder engagement process also gathered suggestions on datasets for the selected indicators.

This phased, inclusive approach underscored the critical role of engaging diverse stakeholders in the indicator selection process. Their involvement ensured that the assessment addressed the unique challenges and opportunities of the landscape while fostering broader collaboration and shared ownership of its goals. By integrating stakeholder priorities, the assessment not only gained credibility and relevance but also laid the groundwork for more effective and aligned sustainability actions across the watershed.

Determining applicability

Conducting an applicability analysis is a helpful but optional tool to ensure additional indicators are thoughtfully considered. If the assessment team chooses to undertake an applicability analysis, they can classify any additional indicators of interest as applicable, inconclusive, or not applicable.

• Applicable: The indicator is relevant to the landscape and can be included in the assessment. While not required, a statement explaining the rationale for its inclusion is encouraged to provide more context for reviewers and readers.

• Inconclusive: If there is insufficient or unclear information to make a determination, the indicator may still be included in the initial assessment. It can be revisited in subsequent assessments if further data indicate it is not applicable.

• Not applicable: The indicator is deemed irrelevant to the landscape.

It is recommended to revisit and update the applicability analysis in reassessments, as changing conditions may make previously inconclusive or non-applicable indicators relevant. For example, a restoration indicator initially deemed not applicable due to a lack of restoration activities may become applicable if new restoration efforts are initiated in the landscape.

Human rights indicators

Regarding the additional human rights indicators (2.2.1 through 2.2.6), LandScale recognizes that relevant data for determining applicability may not always be readily available at the landscape level. Therefore, the recommended process for evaluating these indicators places greater emphasis on stakeholder consultation and desk-based research. This process is detailed in the Human Rights Assessment Guidelines, which the assessment team can follow in conjunction with the criteria in the Landscape-dependent Indicators Criteria Table. This consultative process is required for the indicators within Goal 2.2, and is also recommended for any human rights-related indicators that the assessment team chooses to define and include within the assessment scope.

Create custom 'user-added' indicators

The assessment team has the option to create custom 'user-added' indicators that, when paired with corresponding metrics, can measure topics not currently addressed in the LandScale assessment framework.

[Insert screenshot of sample user-added indicator]

If a user-added indicator is associated with an existing goal within the LandScale assessment framework, then it should be nested within that goal. If the indicator is not associated with an existing goal, then the assessment team may propose a new goal (or, in exceptional cases, a new goal and pillar) to nest the proposed user-added indicator within.

While the four LandScale pillars are designed to cover nearly all sustainability issues aligned with the LandScale mission of measuring holistic landscape sustainability performance, a custom pillar may be proposed if the user-added indicator does not fit within any of the four predefined pillars.