Prioritization for maintenance of intact habitat (i.e., habitat quality rating of Good or Very Good), based on local scale ecological integrity, degree of threats faced, potential conservation opportunities, and conservation value of surrounding landscape. In contrast to ecological integrity ratings; threat, opportunity and landscape rankings are largely based on the range of values of any given indicator across the geography, sorted by quantile. There are some exceptions, particularly for indicators used to develop threat rankings (e.g., urban development risk).
Prioritization for restoration of degraded habitat (i.e., habitat quality rating of Fair or Poor), based on local scale ecological integrity, potential conservation opportunities, and conservation value of surrounding landscape. Threat rankings were not included because the habitat evaluated here is already in a degraded state. In contrast to ecological integrity ratings; threat, opportunity and landscape rankings are largely based on the range of values of any given indicator across the geography, sorted by quantile.
EEMS is a tree-based, fuzzy logic modeling system, where output values range from -1 to +1, indicating whether a given output is entirely FALSE or TRUE, respectively. Indicators with rankings of High or Very High either refer to the top two quarters of rankings, or fuzzy values > 0 (where quantiles are not used). Indicators with rankings of Low or Medium either refer to the bottom two quarters of rankings, or fuzzy values < 0 (where quantiles are not used). For overall restoration rankings, we used five categories (i.e., quintiles) instead of four categories (i.e., quartiles), creating a new category (‘Not Priority’) that refers to the lowest ranked 20% of potential habitat.
