Resources for Implementing the
WWF Project & Programme Standards

Step 1.4
Define: Threat Ranking
July 2007

Step 1.4 Threat Ranking
Contents
What Is a Threat Ranking?................................................................................................... 1
Why Is Threat Ranking Important? ..................................................................................... 1
When To Use Threat Rankings ............................................................................................ 1
How To Do a Threat Ranking ............................................................................................... 1
1. Determine the criteria for ranking .................................................................................................2
2. Apply the threat ranking................................................................................................................3
3. Sum up your threats across all targets to get an overall ranking for the site ...............................4
4. Classify each threat ......................................................................................................................4

Other Methods for Threat Ranking...................................................................................... 6
References............................................................................................................................. 6
Annex 1: Other Methods for Threat Ranking ..................................................................... 7
Comparing Absolute and Relative Rankings....................................................................................9

This document is intended as a guidance resource to support the implementation of the
WWF Standards of Conservation Project and Programme Management. Although each step in these Standards must be completed, the level of detail depends on the circumstances of individual projects and programmes. Accordingly, each team will have to decide whether and to what level of detail they want to apply the guidance in this document. This document may change over time; the most recent version can be accessed at: https://intranet.panda.org/documents/folder.cfm?uFolderID=60977. Written by: Foundations of Success and John Morrison, WWF-US
Please address any comments to Sheila O’Connor (soconnor@wwfint.org).

Define: Threat Ranking
What Is a Threat Ranking?
Threat ranking is a method for explicitly considering the degree to which each direct threat affects the biodiversity targets at your site. It involves identifying and defining a set of criteria and then applying those criteria systematically to the direct threats to a project area so that conservation actions can be directed where they are most needed.

Why Is Threat Ranking Important?
Conservation must take place in the face of a wide variety of threats. A common challenge for conservation practitioners is determining which of these threats they should address. Often, decisions are made applying an implicit set of criteria to evaluate threats and the overall situation at your site.
The danger with this approach is that different people might use different criteria or apply them differently. Moreover, there is also a tendency to address threats for which strategies and expertise already exist, rather than addressing those that are posing the greatest threat to the biodiversity at a site. In real-world situations, where resources are limited, threat rankings provide a systematic process that helps teams focus their actions and address the most important threats at their site.

When To Use Threat Rankings
As outlined in the WWF Standards of Project and Programme Management, every biodiversity conservation project should rank their direct threats during Step 1.4 of the initial planning work for their project. Threat ranking will help teams to prioritize action when they are dealing with more than one threat in a conservation area or region.
Although you will go through the threat ranking process in Step 1.4, you will use your results in Step
2.1 (Action Plan), when you identify and select strategies. By narrowing down the threats on which you will focus, you will have a clearer idea of what factors in your conceptual model you should be trying to influence in order to reduce the impacts of those direct threats. This, in turn, will help you narrow down and select your strategies.

How To Do a Threat Ranking
To do a threat ranking, it is important to be clear about what the main threats at your project site are and what biodiversity targets they are affecting. If you developed a conceptual model as part of your situation analysis (Step 1.4), you will have already done this. Often, teams will first develop their conceptual model and then rank all direct threats in their model. Sometimes – especially in cases where the site is very complex and the team has identified several direct threats – it may be useful to first rank your threats and then complete your conceptual model for the medium- and high-ranked threats. In a threat ranking, a project team will evaluate each direct threat and the impact it is having on the biodiversity target(s) it is affecting. This can be done absolutely or relatively. In absolute rankings, teams consider a criterion (e.g., scope) and a scale (e.g., 1 to 4) and then evaluate threats by criterion, assigning a number within that scale. For relative rankings, teams consider all threats and rank them relative to one another. So, if there are 7 threats, the highest ranked threat in any criterion would get a

Step 1.4 Threat Ranking

1

7, and the lowest ranked threat would get a 1. Annex 1 provides a more detailed explanation of relative rankings.
The methodology presented here involves doing an absolute ranking of threats target-by-target and then rolling up the rankings to determine each threat’s overall effect on the site. Thus, for each target, you will need to look at all the threats that affect it and rank the degree to which each threat affects it.
In some cases, you may find yourself evaluating both actual and potential threats.
In the case of potential threats, it is best to only include them in your ranking if they are threats that are realistic and likely to occur within a reasonable time period (10 years, for example). So, you might include a road that a local logging company is negotiating with the government as a real potential threat, but you would not include an invasion of your site by Martians as a potential threat.
We suggest you use the Conservation
Measures Partnership’s Miradi software to do your threat ranking (see Box 1). This software uses an algorithm that takes into account a threat’s ranking by target as well as across targets to come up with an overall ranking for your site.

1. Determine the criteria for ranking Box 1. Miradi Adaptive Management Software
Miradi, which means "project" in the Sub-Saharan African language of Swahili, is a software program under development that will help conservation project teams implement an adaptive management process such as that supported by the WWF Standards. Based on the
Conservation Measures Partnership’s Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, Miradi guides conservation practitioners through a series of step-by-step interview wizards. As practitioners go through these steps, Miradi helps them to define their project scope, and design conceptual models and spatial maps of their project site. The software also helps teams to prioritize threats, develop objectives and actions, and select monitoring indicators to assess the effectiveness of their strategies. Miradi is being developed by the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP), a consortium of leading nature conservation organizations, and
Benetech, a nonprofit technology development organization.
Miradi is available in a beta version for testing at www.Miradi.org. The first step is to determine the criteria against which you will rank the threats at your site. As a starting point, we recommend that project teams consider the criteria of scope, severity, and irreversibility (Box 2). Scope refers to the proportion of the target (area for ecosystems, population for species) that is likely to be affected within 10 years under current circumstances. Severity attempts to categorize the level of damage to the biodiversity target expected within that particular scope and in the specified time frame. Irreversibility is the degree to which the effects of a given threat can be undone and the targets affected by the threat restored, if the threat is stopped.
Your team may determine other criteria are important, but we suggest limiting the total number of criteria to 4 or fewer. More criteria rarely affect the outcome of the threat ranking and often make this step more complex than it needs to be.

Step 1.4 Threat Ranking

2

Box 2. Criteria for Threat Ranking Using the Absolute System
Scope – The proportion of the target that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within ten years, given the continuation of current circumstances and trends. For ecosystems and ecological communities, measured as the proportion of the target’s occurrence. For species, measured as the proportion of the target’s population.
4 = Very High: The threat is likely to be pervasive in its scope, affecting the target across all or most (71-100%) of its occurrence/population.
3 = High: The threat is likely to be widespread in its scope, affecting the target across much
(31–70%) of its occurrence/population.
2 = Medium: The threat is likely to be restricted in its scope, affecting the target across some
(11–30%) of its occurrence/population.
1 = Low: The threat is likely to be very narrow in its scope, affecting the target across a small proportion (1-10%) of its occurrence/population.
Severity – Within the scope, the level of damage to the target from the threat that can reasonably be expected given the continuation of current circumstances and trends. For ecosystems and ecological communities, typically measured as the degree of destruction or degradation of the target within the scope. For species, usually measured as the degree of reduction of the target population within the scope.
4 = Very High: Within the scope, the threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the target, or reduce its population by 71-100% within ten years or three generations.
3 = High: Within the scope, the threat is likely to seriously degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 31-70% within ten years or three generations.
2 = Medium: Within the scope, the threat is likely to moderately degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 11-30% within ten years or three generations.
1 = Low: Within the scope, the threat is likely to only slightly degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 1-10% within ten years or three generations.
Irreversibility (Permanence) – the degree to which the effects of a threat can be reversed and the target affected by the threat restored. It is assessed for the impact of the threat on the target, not the threat itself.
4 = Very High: The effects of the threat cannot be reversed, it is very unlikely the target can be restored, and/or it would take more than 100 years to achieve this (e.g., wetlands converted to a shopping centre).
3 = High: The effects of the threat can technically be reversed and the target restored, but it is not practically affordable and/or it would take 21–100 years to achieve this (e.g., wetland converted to agriculture).
2 = Medium: The effects of the threat can be reversed and the target restored with a reasonable commitment of resources and/or within 6–20 years (e.g., ditching and draining of wetland)
1 = Low: The effects of the threat are easily reversible and the target can be easily restored at a relatively low cost and/or within 0–5 years (e.g., off-road vehicles trespassing in wetland).

2. Apply the threat ranking
If you are unable to download Miradi, you can use the Excel spreadsheet that accompanies this guide.
We suggest you limit the number of direct threats you rank to 10 or, preferably, fewer. More than 10 threats will make this process unnecessarily complex.
The steps for applying the threat ranking are:
a. Develop a list of all direct threats – On your worksheet, add main direct threats you have identified in your conceptual model.

Step 1.4 Threat Ranking

3

b. List your targets – In the top row of your worksheet, enter all the biodiversity targets you are trying to conserve at your site.
c. Put a line through the boxes where there is not a relationship between the threat and the target – If you use the Excel template rather than the Miradi software, make sure that for each target, you only rank the threats that your conceptual model shows directly affect your target.
Putting a line through the boxes where there is not a relationship will help you remember not to rank threats that do not affect a target
d. Rank each threat for SCOPE, SEVERITY, and IRREVERSIBILITY (PERMANENCE)
– Using the definitions and 4 point scale defined in Box 2, discuss each threat target-by-target and criterion-by-criterion with your team and then assign and record a score in the appropriate box. Repeat this process until you have ranked all threats against all targets they affect.
Add up the ranking scores for each threat by target –Scope and severity taken together, give you a sense of the magnitude of the threat. As such, they are the most important criteria for rankings. For this reason, we recommend double-weighting them (or using Miradi or another algorithm that emphasizes scope and severity). The Excel template will weight them automatically. Those threats with the highest number would be considered the greatest threats to your target.

3. Sum up your threats across all targets to get an overall ranking for the site To understand how great a threat your direct threat is to your overall site (not just a specific target), you need to consider its impact on all targets within your site. If you cannot use Miradi software, you can merely sum the totals for each threat by target to get a numeric value for the overall site. While not perfect, this method will allow you to compare the magnitude of the threats for the site in general.
Those threats with the highest number would be considered the greatest threats to your site.
Generally, it is important to know how a threat is affecting your overall site and to focus on those threats causing the greatest impact to the sites. Nevertheless, you may decide to work on a threat that is a high or very high threat to a target but is only a medium or low threat to your overall site. This is fine, but you should be clear in justifying why you have made that decision. For example, perhaps not all targets are equal, and it is really important for social, political, or ecological reasons that you focus more energy on one particular target.

4. Classify each threat
Although it may be tempting to evaluate your threats on numbers alone, it is better to classify them into categories of very high, high, medium, and low. These categories are more appropriate, given the somewhat imprecise and subjective nature of the ranking process. For example, the difference between a threat with 12 points and one with 10 points is likely not significant, but the difference between one with 12 points and one with 5 is significant. You should use this classification for both the targets and the site overall.
Applying a threats ranking method helps you determine where to act – an often difficult decision when working in complex sites with multiple threats and multiple targets. In general, the threats ranked very high and high will be the ones to which you should direct your project strategies.

Step 1.4 Threat Ranking

4

Figure 1. Example of an Absolute Threat Ranking by Target
The following is an example of a threat ranking, using an absolute ranking method. This is based on a real-world ranking done by a WWF project team working in an island marine site. Three criteria (scope, severity, and irreversibility) are used to evaluate seven direct threats across three targets. Each threat is rated using the criteria and a 4 point scale.
TARGET: Sharks
DIRECT THREAT
Illegal shark fishing by boats from mainland TARGET: Coral Reefs

TARGET: Intertidal Systems

TARGET: Seabirds

SITE RANKING

IRREVER
IRREVER
IRREVER
IRREVER
SCOPE SEVERITY SIBILITY TOTAL CLASSIFICATION SCOPE SEVERITY SIBILITY TOTAL CLASSIFICATION SCOPE SEVERITY SIBILITY TOTAL CLASSIFICATION SCOPE SEVERITY SIBILITY TOTAL CLASSIFICATION TOTAL CLASSIFICATION

4

3

3

17

17

Very High

High

Global warming

4

3

3

17

Very High

17

High

Diver & anchor damage 1

2

1

7

Low

7

Low

Legal but unsustainable fishing by local fishermen 3

3

3

15

High

3

2

3

13

Medium

28

Very High

Sewage

1

1

1

5

Low

5

Low

Potential oil spills

1

2

2

8

Low

Introduced predators (rats)

2

3

2

12

Medium

20

High

2

3

2

12

Medium

12

Medium

Note: Total = 2*(scope + severity) + Irreversibility

Step 1.4 Threat Ranking

5

Other Methods for Threat Ranking
There are other ways to do threat ranking as well. Perhaps the most detailed threat rankings method is that presented in the The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Action Planning tool (TNC 2003).
The method involves a detailed ranking of each threat, using a 4 point absolute scale and applying a series of algorithms to convert the ratings into an overall threat rating. The method used by Miradi
Adaptive Management software is a simplified version of this threat rating method.
Another method adapted from Margoluis and Salafsky (1998) compares all the direct threats in a given site to one another across each criteria. This involves considering the threats overall for the site, not target-by-target, as presented in the method above. It also involves considering the threats relative to one another. Thus, it forces a team to decide which threats are the most critical – rather than falling into the potential trap of saying all threats are important. Annex 1 provides more details on relative rankings.

References
Conservation Measures Partnership. 2005. Taxonomy of Direct Threats. Website available at http://fosonline.org/CMP/Tax/browse.cfm?TaxID=DirectThreats. Groves, C.R. 2003. Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioner’s Guide to Planning for
Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 2001. Is our project succeeding? A guide to Threat Reduction
Assessment for conservation. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC.
Margoluis, R., and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of success: Designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Margules, C.R., and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 404:243-253.
TNC. 2003. The 5S Framework for Site Conservation: A Practitioner's Handbook for Site
Conservation Planning. http://conserveonline.org/docs/2000/11/5-SVOL1.pdf.

Step 1.4 Threat Ranking

6

Annex 1: Other Methods for Threat Ranking
Perhaps the most detailed threat rankings method is that presented in the The Nature Conservancy’s
Conservation Action Planning tool (TNC 2003). The method involves a detailed ranking of each threat, using a 4 point absolute scale and applying a series of algorithms to convert the ratings into an overall threat rating. The method used by Miradi Adaptive Management software is a simplified version of this threat rating method.
Another method adapted from Margoluis and Salafsky (1998) compares all the direct threats in a given site to one another across each criteria.
Box 3. Criteria for Threat Rankings Using the
This involves considering the threats overall
Relative System for the site, not target-by-target, as presented
Scope – The proportion of the target that can in the method above. It also involves using reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat a relative ranking process, rather than an within ten years, given the continuation of current absolute. Due to differences in the systems, circumstances and trends (generally, proportion of the suggested criteria also differ somewhat area for ecosystem targets and proportion of
(see Box 3). For both absolute target-bypopulation affected for species targets). target and relative whole-site ratings, we
Severity – Within the scope, the level of damage to suggest the use of the scope and severity the target from the threat that can reasonably be criteria. For the relative whole-site ranking, expected given the continuation of current however, you should not use the circumstances and trends. Note: you should only irreversibility criterion. This is because consider the area/scope affected, not the whole site irreversibility is highly dependent upon a when calculating severity. So, if you have a threat specific target’s resilience to a given threat. that affects 10% of your overall area, you should
For example, a threat of acid rain might pose judge its severity in terms of its level of damage a minimal threat to a forest but completely within that 10%. eliminate aquatic life in streams and lakes
Urgency – The importance of taking immediate found in that forest. If the acid rain threat action to deal with the threat. Is the threat occurring were eliminated, its effect on the forests now? Or is it only likely to be important in future could be reversed, but it might be impossible years? Could you avoid significant resource to reverse its effect on streams and lakes – investment in the future by taking action today? and, in particular, the aquatic species that
Note: The time element in the scope and severity were eliminated. Because of this issue with definition is different from that in the urgency irreversibility in whole site ratings, we criterion. The first gives a boundary for the overall suggest you use urgency as your third timeframe, whereas the latter asks, within that time criterion. Urgency refers to the importance frame, which threat is most important to address of taking immediate action to address the first? Urgency clarifies if action needs to happen threat. Generally, a threat that is occurring right now, 5 years from now, or 25 years from now. now will be more urgent than one that is likely to occur in the future. However, if, with minimal resources, you could take action today on a threat and avoid significant resource investment in the future, then that threat would also be considered urgent. A good example of such a threat is an invasive exotic species.

The following steps provide guidance for a relative ranking. For definitions of each criterion, see
Box 3.

Step 1.4 Threat Ranking

7

a. List All the Threats at Your Site – Using the Relative Ranking worksheet in the Excel file

that accompanies this guide, create a matrix with each threat occupying a row and the columns containing the criteria, total ranking, and classification for your site.
b. Rank Each Threat for SCOPE – List your ranking of the threats based on the area of your

site or the proportion of the population affected. Assign the largest number (equal to the total number of threats) to the threat affecting the largest area or population, continuing down to a rank of 1 for the threat that affects the smallest area or population. For example, if you have 6 threats, the threat covering the largest scope would receive a 6, while that covering the smallest scope would receive a 1.
c.

Rank Each Threat for SEVERITY – Record the rankings you assigned to the threats based on the impact or severity of destruction to the area or scope affected, again with the largest number (equal to the total number of threats) assigned to the threat of greatest severity and continuing down to a rank of 1 for the least severe threat.

d. Rank Each Threat for URGENCY – Record your rankings for urgency, with the largest

number (equal to the total number of threats) assigned to the threat for which you need to take immediate action to reduce it. Continue down to a rank of 1 for the threat that you can wait longer to address.
e. Sum Up Your Rankings – Add up the total of the ranking numbers by column and record that

total at the bottom of each column (Note: As a check on your calculations, this total should be the same for scope, severity, and irreversibility). Scope and severity taken together, give you a sense of the magnitude of the threat. As such, they are the most important criteria for ratings.
For this reason, we recommend double-weighting them (or using Miradi or another algorithm that emphasizes scope and severity). The Excel template will weight them automatically.
f.

Classify Your Threats – As with the absolute ranking, it is better not to put too much value on the actual numbers coming out of your ranking, but rather to classify threats into categories of very high, high, medium, and low.

Figure 2. Example of a Relative Whole-Site Threat Ranking
The following is an example of a threat ranking applied at the level of the whole site and using a relative ranking method. This is based on a real-world ranking for a WWF project in a tropical forest site. Three criteria (scope, severity, and urgency) are used to evaluate nine direct threats.
DIRECT THREAT

SCOPE

SEVERITY

URGENCY

TOTAL

CLASSIFICATION

Agriculture frontier expansion

7

8

9

24

Very High

Commercial fishing

1

2

1

4

Low

Freshwater turtle and turtle eggs over-harvesting

3

7

4

14

Medium

Hunting

8

4

7

19

High

Illegal Logging

6

5

8

19

High

Mining

2

9

5

16

Medium

Paiche (Invasive fish species)

4

6

6

16

Medium

Palm exploitation

5

3

2

10

Low

Unsustainable Brazil nut management

9

1

3

13

Medium

45

45

45

TOTAL

Step 1.4 Threat Ranking

8

Comparing Absolute and Relative Rankings
Absolute and relative rankings each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages. You will have to decide what makes most sense at your site. Table 1 provides some information that will help your team decide which method works for your site.
Table 1. Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Absolute Target-by-Target and Relative Whole Site Threat Ranking Methods
Advantages
Disadvantages
Absolute Target-by- • Ratings from one site to another are • Ratings may not show much of
Target Rankings a spread, making it difficult to directly comparable if criteria are applied consistently
•

Two or more threats that are equal for a particular criterion can receive
•
the same ranking

•

Relative Whole Site
Rankings

Ratings account for threats that may affect only a limited set of targets •

Forces a spread across the threats so that threats are not rated the same •

•

Can be faster if the team has a good understanding of the threats to the site Easier to do if you are just starting out at your site & don’t have a lot of information about your targets

determine which are truly the most important threats for conservation action
Need a good understanding of your targets & how each threat affects them

•

Ratings from one site to another are not directly comparable

•

Forces sometimes artificial or arbitrary distinctions between threats •

Does not do a very good job of accounting for threats that affect only a limited set of targets
(e.g., threats such as hunting that affect only a single species)

In general terms, we recommend using absolute target-by-target ratings in situations where you have a lot of information and a fairly thorough understanding of your site. Relative whole site are more appropriate when you do not have a lot of information about the site and when you just want to get a quick approximation of your most critical threats. Often though, this can be enough for your purposes. You just need to be aware of the benefits and limitations of each method.

Step 1.4 Threat Ranking

9