Skip to main content Accessibility help

A process for assessing and prioritizing species conservation needs: going beyond the Red List

  • Kevin Johnson (a1), Anne Baker (a1), Kevin Buley (a2), Luis Carrillo (a1), Richard Gibson (a2), Graeme R. Gillespie (a3), Robert C. Lacy (a4) and Kevin Zippel (a1)...


Conservation resources are limited, yet an increasing number of species are under threat. Assessing species for their conservation needs is, therefore, a vital first step in identifying and prioritizing species for both ex situ and in situ conservation actions. Using a transparent, logical and objective method, the Conservation Needs Assessment process developed by Amphibian Ark uses current knowledge of species in the wild to determine those with the most pressing conservation needs, and provides a foundation for the development of holistic conservation action plans that combine in situ and ex situ actions as appropriate. These assessments allow us to maximize the impact of limited conservation resources by identifying which measures could best serve those species requiring help. The Conservation Needs Assessment complements the IUCN Red List assessment, and together they provide a more holistic guide to conservation priorities and actions. Conservation Needs Assessments generate national prioritized lists of species recommended for conservation action. These can subsequently be used to assist in the development of species recovery plans and national action plans, or to inform national conservation priorities better. Additional tools that will evaluate the recommendations for ex situ rescues, to determine the best candidates for conservation breeding programmes, are currently under development.


Corresponding author

(Corresponding author) E-mail


Hide All

Also at: School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia

The supplementary material for this article is available at



Hide All
Amphibian Ark (2014) Amphibian Conservation Needs Assessment Process. Http:// [accessed 9 August 2016].
Amphibian Ark (2015) Conservation Needs Assessments. Http:// [accessed 22 October 2017].
AmphibiaWeb (2016) Http:// [accessed 28 July 2016].
Balmford, A., Gaston, K.J., Rodrigues, A.S.L. & James, A. (2000) Integrating costs of conservation into international priority setting. Conservation Biology, 14, 597605.
Barber, D. & Poole, V. (eds) (2014) Association of Zoos and Aquariums Amphibian Taxon Advisory Group Regional Collection Plan, 3rd edition. Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Apple Valley, USA.
Byers, O., Lees, C., Wilcken, J. & Schwitzer, C. (2013) The ‘one plan approach’: The philosophy and implementation of CBSG's approach to integrated species conservation planning. WAZA Magazine, 14, 25.
Cabezas, F., Morales, C., Formoso, C., Rodríguez, J.E. & Matamoros, Y. (eds) (2016) Taller de priorización de especies para la restauración del Río torres. Grupo de Especialistas en Conservación y Reproducción – UICN/SSC (CBSG Mesoamérica), San José, Costa Rica.
Cabezas, F., Rodríguez, J.E. & Matamoros, Y. (eds) (2009) Proceso de Priorización e Implementación Para la Conservación ex situ de Especies Arbóreas Nativas de los Cantones de Santa Ana, Escazú, Mora y Belén, Santa Ana, Costa Rica.
Carter, M.R., Hunter, W.C., Pashley, D.N. & Rosenberg, K.V. (2000) Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the United States: the partners in flight approach. Auk, 117, 541–8.
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R., Barnosky, A.D., García, A., Pringle, R.M. & Palmer, T.M. (2015) Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances, 1, e1400253.
Collen, B., Dulvy, N.K., Gaston, K.J., Gärdenfors, U., Keith, D.A., Punt, A.E. et al. (2016) Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List. Biological Letters, 12, 20150843.
EDGE (2016) Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered. Http:// [accessed 20 July 2016].
Game, E.T., Kareiva, P. & Possingham, H.P. (2013) Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conservation Biology, 27, 480485.
Gascon, C., Collins, J.P., Moore, R.D., Church, D.R., McKay, J.E. & Mendelson, J.R. III (eds) (2007) Amphibian Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN (2016) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-1. Http:// [accessed 9 August 2016].
Leader-Williams, N. & Dublin, H.T. (2000) Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship species’. In Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity: Has the Panda Had its Day? (eds Entwistle, A. & Dunstone, N.), pp. 5381. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Master, L.L. (1991) Assessing threats and setting conservation priorities. Conservation Biology, 5, 559–63.
Naidoo, R., Ferraro, P.J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T.H. & Rouget, M. (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 681687.
Parsons, E.C.M. (2016) Why IUCN should replace ‘data deficient’ conservation status with a precautionary ‘assume threatened’ status—A cetacean case study. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 193.
Reed, J.M. (1992) A system for ranking conservation priorities for neotropical migrant birds based on relative susceptibility to extinction. In Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (eds Hagan, J.M.H. III & Johnston, D.W.), pp. 524–36. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Szabo, J.K., Briggs, S.V., Lonie, R., Bell, L., Maloney, R., Joseph, L.N. et al. (2009) The feasibility of applying a cost-effective approach for assigning priorities for threatened species recovery with a case study from New South Wales, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology, 15, 238245.
Wren, S., Angulo, A., Meredith, H., Kielgast, J., Dos Santos, M. & Bishop, P. (eds) (2015) Amphibian Conservation Action Plan. IUCN Species Survival Commission Amphibian Specialist Group. Http:// [accessed 20 July 2016].
Zippel, K., Lacy, R. & Byers, O. (eds) (2006) CBSG/WAZA Amphibian Ex Situ Conservation Planning Workshop Final Report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, Minensota, USA. Http:// [accessed 20 July 2016].


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Johnson et al. supplementary material
Johnson et al. supplementary material 1

 PDF (170 KB)
170 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed