Concept · Glossary
Land Health Score
Also: LHS, Land Health Score band
Definition
A nine-level scale (1 Collapsed → 9 Flourishing) summarising the overall ecological condition of a piece of land, designed as a Beaufort Scale for ecosystem health.
The Land Health Score is EcoIntel’s headline metric for the overall ecological condition of a piece of land. It runs from 1: Collapsed (system failure, bare soil dominant) through to 9: Flourishing (ecosystem at fullest expression, strengthens under disturbance), giving anyone (a farmer, a landlord, a banker, a regulator) a single number that captures something otherwise hard to communicate.
The model is the Beaufort Scale for wind. Beaufort does not measure wind speed precisely; it gives an observed condition (a 5 is “fresh breeze, small trees in leaf begin to sway”) that any sailor can read at a glance. The Land Health Score does the same for ecological function: each band has a description, a visible signature, and expected consequences for ecology, finance, carbon, biodiversity, water and resilience.
The Score is computed per field, every season, from satellite-derived indicators across the four ecosystem processes (Energy Flow, Water Cycle, Mineral Cycle, Ecological Community Dynamics), calibrated to the ecoregion the land sits in. It is weather-corrected, so a bad weather year does not make a healthy farm look degraded. It comes with a confidence label (Low / Moderate / High) so you know how strongly to act on it.
The Score is reported to one decimal place alongside its band name, written as 6.2 Recovering. The decimal gives position within the band, so two farms both Recovering but at 6.2 and 6.8 are not in the same place; the band name gives the meaning. A whole-farm Land Health Score rolls up from per-field scores weighted by area. The same logic applies upwards to an estate, a portfolio, or a supply base.
The Land Health Score is the headline. Its value is in being legible: by a farmer in the kitchen at 7am, by a banker in a credit committee, by an auditor signing off an ESRS E4 disclosure.
The nine levels in full
Each band has a characteristic signature across the four ecosystem-process indices. The percentage ranges below are the Process Index values typical of land in that band: Water Cycle (WCI), Mineral Cycle (MCI), Energy Flow (EFI) and Ecological Community Dynamics (CDI) each scored 0–100.
| Score | Description | Water Cycle | Mineral Cycle | Energy Flow | Ecological Community Dynamics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9Flourishing | Ecosystem at fullest expression. Strengthens under disturbance. | 85–95% · Infiltration efficient; minimal runoff | 85–95% · Soil surface stable; negligible erosion | 90–98% · High live canopy; strong capture/conversion | 80–95% · Diverse; desirable FGs vigorous; rares present |
| 8Thriving | All processes highly active. Strong biological diversity and vitality. | 80–90% · Good infiltration; rare rills | 80–90% · Stable; no active pedestals | 85–95% · High photosynthetic mass | 75–90% · Good structure; low undesirables |
| 7Healthy | All core processes functioning well. Minor vulnerabilities only. | 75–88% · Mostly effective; occasional limits | 72–88% · Mostly stable | 80–92% · Robust growth; short stress dips | 70–88% · FGs healthy; rares occasional |
| 6Recovering | Measurable improvement underway. Trajectory clearly positive. | 65–80% · Some runoff events | 60–78% · Minor instability showing | 70–85% · Seasonal dips evident | 60–80% · Some FG weakness/patchiness |
| 5Transitional | Some processes functioning, others compromised. Trend unstable. | 55–72% · Runoff frequent storms | 50–70% · Localised erosion/capping | 60–80% · Uneven canopy | 50–72% · Undesirables creeping |
| 4Stressed | Multiple processes impaired. System under significant strain. | 45–62% · Poor soak; frequent sheet flow | 40–60% · Pedestals appear | 50–70% · Canopy thin; litter patchy | 40–60% · Key FGs weakening |
| 3Degraded | Most processes failing. Structural damage evident. Urgent action needed. | 35–55% · Regular runoff; rills | 30–50% · Erosion signals common | 40–60% · Low biomass; slow recovery | 30–55% · Undesirables common; rares rare |
| 2Depleted | Severe dysfunction across systems. Biological capital critically low. | 25–45% · Little infiltration | 20–40% · Active erosion; capping widespread | 30–50% · Low photosynthesis | 20–45% · FGs failing; low diversity |
| 1Collapsed | System failure. Bare soil dominant, minimal vegetation or function. | 0–35% · Flashy water loss | 0–30% · Severe erosion | 0–40% · Bare/standing dead dominate | 0–35% · Collapse towards few stress-tolerant spp. |
The table sits behind every report EcoIntel produces. When a parcel scores Land Health 5: Transitional, that reading carries a structured set of expectations across all four processes; the band is not a vague label but a defined signature.