Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact

  • Molly K. Grace
  • , H. Resit Akçakaya
  • , Elizabeth L. Bennett
  • , Thomas M. Brooks
  • , Anna Heath
  • , Simon Hedges
  • , Craig Hilton-Taylor
  • , Michael Hoffmann
  • , Axel Hochkirch
  • , Richard Jenkins
  • , David A. Keith
  • , Barney Long
  • , David P. Mallon
  • , Erik Meijaard
  • , E. J. Milner-Gulland
  • , Jon Paul Rodriguez
  • , P. J. Stephenson
  • , Simon N. Stuart
  • , Richard P. Young
  • , Pablo Acebes
  • Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto, Silvia Alvarez-Clare, Raphali Rodlis Andriantsimanarilafy, Marina Arbetman, Claudio Azat, Gianluigi Bacchetta, Ruchi Badola, Luís M.D. Barcelos, Joao Pedro Barreiros, Sayanti Basak, Danielle J. Berger, Sabuj Bhattacharyya, Gilad Bino, Paulo A.V. Borges, Raoul K. Boughton, H. Jane Brockmann, Hannah L. Buckley, Ian J. Burfield, James Burton, Teresa Camacho-Badani, Luis Santiago Cano-Alonso, Ruth H. Carmichael, Christina Carrero, John P. Carroll, Giorgos Catsadorakis, David G. Chapple, Guillaume Chapron, Gawsia Wahidunnessa Chowdhury, Louw Claassens, Donatella Cogoni, Rochelle Constantine, Christie Anne Craig, Andrew A. Cunningham, Nishma Dahal, Jennifer C. Daltry, Goura Chandra Das, Niladri Dasgupta, Alexandra Davey, Katharine Davies, Pedro Develey, Vanitha Elangovan, David Fairclough, Mirko Di Febbraro, Giuseppe Fenu, Fernando Moreira Fernandes, Eduardo Pinheiro Fernandez, Brittany Finucci, Rita Földesi, Catherine M. Foley, Matthew Ford, Michael R.J. Forstner, Néstor García, Ricardo Garcia-Sandoval, Penny C. Gardner, Roberto Garibay-Orijel, Marites Gatan-Balbas, Irene Gauto, Mirza Ghazanfar Ullah Ghazi, Stephanie S. Godfrey, Matthew Gollock, Benito A. González, Tandora D. Grant, Thomas Gray, Andrew J. Gregory, Roy H.A. van Grunsven, Marieka Gryzenhout, Noelle C. Guernsey, Garima Gupta, Christina Hagen, Christian A. Hagen, Madison B. Hall, Eric Hallerman, Kelly Hare, Tom Hart, Ruston Hartdegen, Yvette Harvey-Brown, Richard Hatfield, Tahneal Hawke, Claudia Hermes, Rod Hitchmough, Pablo Melo Hoffmann, Charlie Howarth, Michael A. Hudson, Syed Ainul Hussain, Charlie Huveneers, Hélène Jacques, Dennis Jorgensen, Suyash Katdare, Lydia K.D. Katsis, Rahul Kaul, Boaz Kaunda-Arara, Lucy Keith-Diagne, Daniel T. Kraus, Thales Moreira de Lima, Ken Lindeman, Jean Linsky, Edward Louis, Anna Loy, Eimear Nic Lughadha, Jeffrey C. Mangel, Paul E. Marinari, Gabriel M. Martin, Gustavo Martinelli, Philip J.K. McGowan, Alistair McInnes, Eduardo Teles Barbosa Mendes, Michael J. Millard, Claire Mirande, Daniel Money, Joanne M. Monks, Carolina Laura Morales, Nazia Naoreen Mumu, Raquel Negrao, Anh Ha Nguyen, Md Nazmul Hasan Niloy, Grant Leslie Norbury, Cale Nordmeyer, Darren Norris, Mark O'Brien, Gabriela Akemi Oda, Simone Orsenigo, Mark Evan Outerbridge, Stesha Pasachnik, Juan Carlos Pérez-Jiménez, Charlotte Pike, Fred Pilkington, Glenn Plumb, Rita de Cassia Quitete Portela, Ana Prohaska, Manuel G. Quintana, Eddie Fanantenana Rakotondrasoa, Dustin H. Ranglack, Hassan Rankou, Ajay Prakash Rawat, James Thomas Reardon, Marcelo Lopes Rheingantz, Stephen C. Richter, Malin C. Rivers, Luke Rollie Rogers, Patrícia da Rosa, Paul Rose, Emily Royer, Catherine Ryan, Yvonne J.Sadovy de Mitcheson, Lily Salmon, Carlos Henrique Salvador, Michael J. Samways, Tatiana Sanjuan, Amanda Souza dos Santos, Hiroshi Sasaki, Emmanuel Schutz, Heather Ann Scott, Robert Michael Scott, Fabrizio Serena, Surya P. Sharma, John A. Shuey, Carlos Julio Polo Silva, John P. Simaika, David R. Smith, Julia L.Y. Spaet, Shanjida Sultana, Bibhab Kumar Talukdar, Vikash Tatayah, Philip Thomas, Angela Tringali, Hoang Trinh-Dinh, Chongpi Tuboi, Aftab Alam Usmani, Aída M. Vasco-Palacios, Jean Christophe Vié, Jo Virens, Alan Walker, Bryan Wallace, Lauren J. Waller, Hongfeng Wang, Oliver R. Wearn, Merlijn van Weerd, Simon Weigmann, Daniel Willcox, John Woinarski, Jean W.H. Yong, Stuart Young
  • University of Oxford
  • IUCN Species Survival Commission
  • Stony Brook University
  • Wildlife Conservation Society
  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
  • University of the Philippines
  • University of Tasmania
  • Synchronicity Earth
  • IUCN SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group
  • IUCN SSC Asian Wild Cattle Specialist Group
  • IUCN Red List Unit
  • Zoological Society of London
  • Trier University
  • Global Species Programme
  • University of New South Wales
  • NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
  • Re:wild
  • Manchester Metropolitan University
  • IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group
  • University of Queensland
  • Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas
  • IUCN SSC Species Monitoring Specialist Group
  • University of Lausanne
  • Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust
  • Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
  • Hospital Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen-Universidad Científica del Sur
  • The Morton Arboretum
  • Madagasikara Voakajy
  • Universidad Nacional del Comahue
  • Universidad Andrés Bello
  • University of Cagliari
  • Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
  • University of the Azores
  • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  • Indian Institute of Science Bangalore
  • University of Florida
  • National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences
  • BirdLife International
  • Museo de Historia Natural Alcides d'Orbigny
  • Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  • Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory
  • Society for the Protection of Prespa
  • Monash University
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
  • University of Dhaka
  • Rhodes University
  • School of Biological Sciences
  • Endangered Wildlife Trust
  • Zoological Society of London Institute of Zoology
  • CSIR - Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology
  • Fauna & Flora International
  • Botanic Gardens Conservation International
  • BirdLife/SAVE Brasil
  • University of Otago
  • Department of Fisheries
  • University of Molise
  • Sociedade de Amigos da Fundação Zoobotânica de Belo Horizonte
  • National Center for Flora Conservation (CNCFlora)
  • NIWA
  • University of Bonn
  • University of Hawai'i at Mānoa
  • Museum für Naturkunde - Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science
  • Texas State University
  • Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
  • Danau Girang Field Centre
  • ISU Garita
  • Asociación Etnobotánica Paraguaya
  • Universidad de Chile
  • Zoological Society of San Diego
  • Wildlife Alliance
  • Bowling Green State University
  • Dutch Butterfly Conservation
  • University of The Free State
  • World Wildlife Fund
  • Newcastle University
  • BirdLife South Africa
  • Oregon State University
  • University of Central Florida
  • Virginia Tech
  • Urban Wildlife Trust
  • Dallas Zoological Society
  • The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation
  • New Zealand's Department of Conservation
  • Rua Julio Gorski
  • Flinders University
  • IUCN Otter Specialist Group
  • Wildlife Trust of India
  • University of Eldoret
  • African Aquatic Conservation Fund
  • University of Waterloo
  • Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
  • Florida Institute of Technology
  • Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium
  • Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  • Smithsonian Institution
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
  • Seabird Conservation Programme
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • International Crane Foundation
  • University of Cambridge
  • Center for Natural Resource Studies
  • Landcare Research
  • Minnesota Zoo
  • Universidade Federal do Amapá
  • BirdLife International Pacific Regional Office
  • Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro
  • University of Pavia
  • Department of Environment and Natural Resources
  • International Iguana Foundation
  • El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
  • U.S. Department of the Interior
  • Consejo Nacional de InvestigacionesCientíficas y Técnicas (CONICET)
  • University of Nebraska at Kearney
  • Eastern Kentucky University
  • University of Exeter
  • The University of Hong Kong
  • Nottingham Trent University
  • Cooperative Caipora
  • Stellenbosch University
  • Grupo Micologos Colombia
  • Chikushi Jogakuen University
  • D'ABOVILLE Foundation and Demo Farm Inc
  • Namibia Crane Working Group
  • National Research Council of Italy
  • NASCA program
  • Universidad de Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano
  • UNESCO-IHE
  • IUCN Asian Rhino Specialist Group
  • Mauritian Wildlife Foundation
  • Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
  • Archbold Biological Station
  • Universidad de Antioquia
  • Fundación Biodiversa Colombia
  • Fondation Franklinia
  • Fisheries & Aquaculture Science
  • Ecolibrium Inc
  • Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds
  • University of the Western Cape
  • Northeast Forestry University
  • Leiden University
  • Elasmobranch Research Laboratory
  • University of Hamburg
  • Cuc Phuong National Park
  • Charles Darwin University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

96 Scopus citations

Abstract

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a “Green List of Species” (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species’ progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species’ viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species’ recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1833-1849
Number of pages17
JournalConservation Biology
Volume35
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2021

Keywords

  • Green Status of species
  • IUCN
  • acciones de conservación
  • categorías de recuperación
  • conservation action
  • estatus verde de especies
  • lista roja
  • recovery categories
  • red list

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this