Select metrics

This section outlines the process and requirements for selecting metrics. The selection of indicators drives the selection of the associated metrics. The selected metrics are then evaluated for data availability to ensure they can be effectively measured and assessed.

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 indicator selection here.

[Insert screenshot of indicator/metric selection]

Types of metrics

The LandScale assessment framework defines two types of metrics: essential and complementary. Users also have the option to define custom metrics, tagged as 'user-added,' which supplement the LandScale-defined metrics within the assessment framework. User-added metrics can be categorized as either essential or complementary, depending on their relevance to the indicator.

Metric category	Description and requirements
Essential	Essential metrics are required for all core indicators. To complete a given indicator, all essential metrics must be measured, and there must be at least one essential metric per indicator. Any deselection of a LandScale-defined essential metric must be clearly justified. These metrics are typically the best-fit measures for the indicator and are often based on reliable global data. When more than one essential metric exists for an indicator, all are important for assessing the indicator and often rely on the same data, requiring little additional effort. Examples of essential metrics include: 1.1.1.1 Total area (ha) & percentage (%) of the landscape in designated protected areas disaggregated by natural ecosystem type. 2.1.2.1 Percentage (%) of girls and boys that are undernourished. 3.1.1.1 Percentage (%) of the landscape with formalized land tenure rights.
Complementary	Complementary metrics may be included at the user's discretion. These metrics provide additional information to assess the relevant indicator and are not substitutes for essential metrics. Examples of complementary metrics include: 1.2.4.1 Area (ha) & percentage (%) of land under restoration within areas identified as important for biodiversity. 4.1.3.1 Land area (ha) under major crop, livestock, and/or plantation forestry production that utilize Integrated Pest Management and percentage (%) of total production area that this represents.
Custom ('user-added')	User-added metrics are those not already defined in the LandScale assessment framework. These metrics are created by the assessment team to address measurement needs for either existing indicators or user-added indicators. User-added metrics can be categorized as either essential or complementary. User-added metrics may be used in place of an essential metric if it is not feasible or appropriate to use the essential metric (e.g., due to data limitations), or if the assessment team believes that the complementary metric provides more reliable information. In such cases, the assessment team must provide a justification explaining why the essential metric is not feasible and/or why the complementary metric is a superior measure of the indicator. This justification should address the four criteria outlined in the following section. The LandScale team will review this justification as part of the validation process for Step B. Each user-added metric must be tied to an indicator. When a user-added metric relates to an existing indicator within the LandScale framework, it should be associated with that indicator. If the metric does not align with any existing indicator, the assessment team must establish a new indicator during the indicator selection process. User-added metrics 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 metric, the metric can still be assessed as a part of the assessment but will not be validated and will not appear on the public profile.

The Rationale for Indicators and Performance Metrics Table contains further explanation and justification for why specific metrics were chosen for inclusion in the LandScale assessment framework.

Criteria for user-added metrics

When the assessment team develops metrics, the following criteria should be followed to ensure that the metrics are credible and effective for measuring sustainability performance and trends—adapted from Understanding Ecoagriculture: A Framework for Measuring Landscape Performance (Buck et al., 2006):

• Relevant: The metric should provide relevant information about the indicator at landscape scale. If an alternative user-added metric is used in place of an essential metric, it must provide similar types of information as the essential metric it is replacing.

• Precise: The metric should provide reliable information about the indicator at a scale that is meaningful for the landscape's size and the level of variation within it.

• Sensitive: The metric should be sensitive enough to detect sustainability performance and trends at the landscape scale. It should be capable of detecting changes in the state of the metric from one assessment to the next.

• Easy to understand: The metric should provide intuitive information to stakeholders and other users of the assessment results.

[Insert screenshot of user-added metric]

Recommended stakeholder input

Once the full set of indicators to be considered in the assessment has been selected, the assessment team should either engage landscape stakeholders in the selection of metrics or invite feedback on candidate metrics identified by the team. In particular, stakeholders should be invited to provide input on the relevance and feasibility of the metrics for the landscape.

Stakeholders often possess valuable knowledge about data available for the landscape. When engaging stakeholders on metric selection, it may be efficient to also inquire about potential data sources before conducting an extensive data search. If some datasets are already known to the assessment team, it is helpful to seek feedback from stakeholders regarding these data sources.

The initial list of data can be drawn from the global datasets identified in the LandScale Data Resources Library (accessible through the LandScale platform) and from the assessment team's knowledge of local and national data. Stakeholder input can be gathered using various means, such as workshops, online documents, or targeted feedback.

Example: Working with stakeholders to select metrics in Lamas, Peru

In Lamas, Peru, several ongoing public and private initiatives aim to improve sustainability at the landscape scale, each with its own monitoring and evaluation metrics. Local government officials decided to use LandScale to facilitate a multi-stakeholder process for selecting common metrics. This collaborative process will help maximize the use of limited resources to address shared environmental and social challenges across these initiatives.

From the outset, the team leading the assessment worked closely with landscape stakeholders, such as government officials and company representatives, to identify and access relevant datasets. During the landscape context analysis and the indicator selection process, the team compiled a list of data sources that could be used to evaluate various metrics. Through this review, the assessment team determined which essential metrics for the selected indicators could be evaluated using the available data. In cases where data was not available, the team defined alternative metrics that could be evaluated. This process involved targeted desk research, interviews with experts (e.g. local biologists), and consultations with local authorities. Where data gaps remained despite these efforts, a small set of indicators was deferred to a later assessment in line with LandScale allowances.

This landscape’s experience underscored the importance of establishing relationships with public and private sector representatives (e.g., mayors, government officials, company managers) and other relevant groups early on, as this facilitated data collection and effective stakeholder engagement.