Supplementary Material
Mapping of Potential Conservation and Repair Benefits
Potential benefits for conservation (otherwise referred to as conservation priority mapping)
for each species were mapped by combining the metapopulation capacity at each grid-cell (i)
with the habitat value of that location. This estimates the implications for each species of
losing native vegetation at each grid-cell. Conservation priority (Pc) was calculated using
equation 1:
Pi c  MPCi  Habitat _ valuei
(1)
Furthermore, priority areas for repair for each species were mapped by combining the
metapopulation capacity at each grid-cell with the potential improvement of the habitat value
of that cell. This analysis allowed cells with higher MPC, but where significant improvement
to habitat quality is attainable, to be mapped. Repair priority (Pr) was calculated using
equation 2:
Pi r  MPCi  I i
(2)
where Ii represents the potential improvement of the habitat value of grid-cell i. A sigmoidal
transition function (see figure below) is used to calculate I for a 15 year period of
regeneration (Drielsma and Ferrier 2006) where the maximum attainable habitat value is
determined by the vegetation community at that cell, and the current habitat value is also
determined by the current condition of the cell (described by the expert derived habitat table).
The maximum transition time (from complete vegetation removal to a pristine state) of 220
years was derived through expert elicitation undertaken for a past project (New South Wales
Department of Environment and Conservation 2004). Partly cleared or degraded sites are
calculated to currently be at a starting point somewhere between 0 and 220 years on this
transition curve. Using this approach, grid-cells having mid-range condition (i.e. on the
steepest part of the curve) can achieve relatively rapid improvement within the 15 years, a
timeframe commonly adopted for the purposes of natural resource investment planning in the
region.
1
This figure shows a hypothetical example of condition improvement over a 15 year
timeframe. The current condition is 58 (vertical axis). This represents 120 years on the
transition function (horizontal axis). With 15 years of management for condition
improvement, the condition can improve to 81. Less improvement is achievable in the
timeframe for currently very low or very high condition.
The results for all species were combined to produce two final conservation and repair
priority maps. Each species’ contribution to the combined conservation and repair priority
value (P) was weighted based on three factors: the percentage of the predicted pre-European
occupancy that was presently occupied, the threat status of the species and the current
percentage of the MPC threshold. The following threat values were assigned:
• Critically Endangered = 100
• Endangered = 80
• Vulnerable = 50
• Declining = 30
P
100  percent _ preEuropean _ occupancy   Threat _ weight 
current _ percent _ MPC _ threshold 0.25
2
(3)
Before summing, each priority grid was normalized by converting raw values to percentiles
i.e. P values were range standardized to between zero and one using equation 4:
Pstd 
P  Pmin 
Pmax
 Pmin 
(4)
All conservation areas have some value in the combined priority layer, but added weight is
given to those with high ‘Pstd’ values. Final combined species conservation priority = 50 +
50xPstd
The combined repair priority layer was produced by assigning a high priority to areas that
had a high ‘Pstd’ value. Final combined species repair priority = 100xPstd
3