The Impact of Spatial Delineation on the Assessment of Species Recovery Outcomes
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
The Impact of Spatial Delineation on the Assessment of Species Recovery Outcomes. / Grace, Molly K.; Akçakaya, H. Resit; Bennett, Elizabeth L.; Boyle, Michael J. W.; Hilton-Taylor, Craig; Hoffmann, Michael; Money, Daniel; Prohaska, Ana; Young, Rebecca; Young, Richard; Long, Barney.
In: Diversity, Vol. 14, No. 9, 742, 2022.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - The Impact of Spatial Delineation on the Assessment of Species Recovery Outcomes
AU - Grace, Molly K.
AU - Akçakaya, H. Resit
AU - Bennett, Elizabeth L.
AU - Boyle, Michael J. W.
AU - Hilton-Taylor, Craig
AU - Hoffmann, Michael
AU - Money, Daniel
AU - Prohaska, Ana
AU - Young, Rebecca
AU - Young, Richard
AU - Long, Barney
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - In 2021, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) introduced a novel method for assessing species recovery and conservation impact: the IUCN Green Status of Species. The Green Status standardizes recovery using a metric called the Green Score, which ranges from 0% to 100%. This study focuses on one crucial step in the Green Status method—the division of a species’ range into so-called “spatial units”—and evaluates whether different approaches for delineating spatial units affect the outcome of the assessment (i.e., the Green Score). We compared Green Scores generated using biologically based spatial units (the recommended method) to Green Scores generated using ecologically based or country-based spatial units for 29 species of birds and mammals in Europe. We found that while spatial units delineated using ecoregions and countries (fine-scale) produced greater average numbers of spatial units and significantly lower average Green Scores than biologically based spatial units, coarse-scale spatial units delineated using biomes and countries above a range proportion threshold did not differ significantly from biologically based results for average spatial unit number or average Green Score. However, case studies focusing on results for individual species (rather than a group average) showed that, depending on characteristics of the species’ distribution, even these coarse-scale delineations of ecological or country spatial units often over- or under-predict the Green Score compared to biologically based spatial units. We discuss cases in which the use of ecologically based or country-based spatial units is recommended or discouraged, in hopes that our results will strengthen the new Green Status framework and ensure consistency in application.
AB - In 2021, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) introduced a novel method for assessing species recovery and conservation impact: the IUCN Green Status of Species. The Green Status standardizes recovery using a metric called the Green Score, which ranges from 0% to 100%. This study focuses on one crucial step in the Green Status method—the division of a species’ range into so-called “spatial units”—and evaluates whether different approaches for delineating spatial units affect the outcome of the assessment (i.e., the Green Score). We compared Green Scores generated using biologically based spatial units (the recommended method) to Green Scores generated using ecologically based or country-based spatial units for 29 species of birds and mammals in Europe. We found that while spatial units delineated using ecoregions and countries (fine-scale) produced greater average numbers of spatial units and significantly lower average Green Scores than biologically based spatial units, coarse-scale spatial units delineated using biomes and countries above a range proportion threshold did not differ significantly from biologically based results for average spatial unit number or average Green Score. However, case studies focusing on results for individual species (rather than a group average) showed that, depending on characteristics of the species’ distribution, even these coarse-scale delineations of ecological or country spatial units often over- or under-predict the Green Score compared to biologically based spatial units. We discuss cases in which the use of ecologically based or country-based spatial units is recommended or discouraged, in hopes that our results will strengthen the new Green Status framework and ensure consistency in application.
KW - green status
KW - IUCN
KW - red list
KW - subpopulations
KW - viability
U2 - 10.3390/d14090742
DO - 10.3390/d14090742
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85138685101
VL - 14
JO - Diversity
JF - Diversity
SN - 1424-2818
IS - 9
M1 - 742
ER -
ID: 321838332