Download - A.P.E.S. Dashboard Tutorial Documentapesportal.eva.mpg.de/.../APES_Dashboard_Tutorial.pdfA.P.E.S. Dashboard Tutorial 3 Figure 4. Examples of the Taxa filter drop-down menus for (a)

A.P.E.S. Dashboard Tutorial Document

C Larrosa E Farmer

JPW Scharlemann

The United Nations Environment Program World Conservation and Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the biodiversity assessment and biodiversity policy support arm of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. The centre has been in operation for over 25 years, combining scientific research with practical policy advice. Recommended Citation: Larrosa C, Farmer E & Scharlemann JPW (2012) A.P.E.S. Dashboard: Tutorial. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available at http://apesportal.eva.mpg.de/status/tools/dashboard/APES_Dashboard_Tutorial.pdf Terms and Conditions of Use: The A.P.E.S. Dashboard scoring methodology has been developed by UNEP-WCMC in consultation with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and IUCN Species Survival Commission and the data incorporated in the analyses has been made available for use by the conservation community. For a full list of data sources and data acknowledgements please refer to the methodology document (http://apesportal.eva.mpg.de/status/tools/dashboard/APES_Dashboard_Methodology.pdf). The information presented represents the best available information for the analyses and we take no responsibility for use by third parties. Acknowledgements: We thank all data providers, the Arcus foundation for funding, and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and IUCN Species Survival Commission for their input into the development of the A.P.E.S. Dashboard methodology. Please refer to the full methodology document (http://apesportal.eva.mpg.de/status/tools/dashboard/APES_Dashboard_Methodology.pdf) for full project acknowledgements.

http://apesportal.eva.mpg.de/status/tools/dashboard/APES_Dashboard_Tutorial.pdf

http://apesportal.eva.mpg.de/status/tools/dashboard/APES_Dashboard_Methodology.pdf

http://apesportal.eva.mpg.de/status/tools/dashboard/APES_Dashboard_Methodology.pdf

A.P.E.S. Dashboard TUTORIAL

GETTING STARTED ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

STEP 1: SELECTING REGION OF INTEREST .......................................................................................................................................... 1

STEP 3: SLIDER BARS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4

STEP 4: FILTERING BY SITE CATEGORY .............................................................................................................................................. 5

STEP 5: OUTPUTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7

GRAPH ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

MAP ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

ANSWERING QUESTIONS WITH A.P.E.S. DASHBOARD ............................................................................................... 11

CASE STUDY: CONSERVING CHIMPANZEES IN THE CONGO BASIN. ................................................................................................. 11

A.P.E.S. Dashboard Tutorial 1

GETTING STARTED

STEP 1: SELECTING REGION OF INTEREST

When loading the A.P.E.S. Dashboard you will be presented with introductory text which asks you to choose

the region you are interested in exploring (figure 1). Significantly different socio-economic conditions within

Asia and Africa prohibit the direct comparison of normalised scores across the regions. Therefore, you will

need to analyse Important Ape Sites (IASs) within one region (i.e. Africa or Asia) at a time. If you would like

to change the region of analysis you will need to re-load (or refresh) the A.P.E.S. Dashboard. Once a region is

selected, the dashboard will load results for all sites in that region (figure 2).

Figure 1. Introductory page with the region selector buttons highlighted.

Figure 2. The A.P.E.S. Dashboard displaying all Important Ape Sites in Africa.


STEP 2: SELECTING TAXA/COUNTRIES OF INTEREST

Once a region has been selected, the A.P.E.S. Dashboard will display all sites which fall within that region.

The next step is to select the taxon/a of interest (species or subspecies), the country/ies of interest, or a

combination of both. This can be done using the “Taxa” and “Countries” filters in the upper left hand area of

the dashboard (figure 3).

Figure 3. The location of the Taxa and Countries filters.

The “Taxa” filter is based on a drop-down menu. Taxa are first classified into Great Apes or Other Apes

(Gibbons), and then into families/genera (figure 4). The “Countries” filter is based on a drop-down menu

which lists all countries (within the selected region) where apes occur (figure 5).

If you are interested in a particular taxon, in a particular country you can combine filter selections. For

example, to analyse sites of the Western Chimpanzee in Guinea select Western Chimpanzees in the “Taxa”

filter and Guinea in the “Countries” filter. Please note, if you select a taxon in a country where it does not

occur the Dashboard will display an empty graph/map/table.


Figure 4. Examples of the Taxa filter drop-down menus for (a) Great Apes in Africa and (b) Other Apes in Asia.

Figure 5. Countries drop-down menus for (a) Africa and (b) Asia.

Once the filters are set, all sites that fulfil the selection criteria will be shown in the graph/map/table. For

example, if “Great Apes” and “Cameroon” were selected in the filters, all sites which fall (a) in the extent of

occurrence of any great ape species and (b) within Cameroon, would be displayed in the graph, map and

table.


STEP 3: SLIDER BARS

There are three slider bars that allow you to refine the selection of sites shown in the graph/map/table. These

are based on three attributes: (1) Response score for the site, (2) Biodiversity score for the site and (3) Area of

the site (in km2) (figure 6). The minimum and maximum values shown on the slider bars correspond to the

minimum/maximum possible values for each slider variable within the selected region (figure 6).

Figure 6. The Response, Biodiversity and Important Ape Site Area slider bars (demonstrated for African sites).

Sliders on the slider bars can be dragged to a desired value. Alternatively, the desired value can be typed in

the appropriate text box. Altering the slide values will exclude sites from the graph/map/table which do not

fall within the selected value ranges. For example, if you are only interested in sites which (a) are at least 100

km2 in extent, (b) have a low Response scores (less than 0.5), and (c) have a high Biodiversity scores (greater

than 0.4), you can either drag the sliders to the desired values (0.5, 0.4 and 100 for Response, Biodiversity and

Area, respectively) or type the values into the slider labels (figure 7). All Important Ape Sites with low

Response scores (less than 0.5), high Biodiversity scores (greater than 0.4), and which are greater than 100

km2 in extent will be displayed. Please note, the selected region, taxon/a and country/ies will also influence

the sites displayed.


Figure 7. Example using the Response, Biodiversity and Area slider bars. Results show, for a selected region,

taxon/a and country/ies, all Important Ape Sites with low response scores (less than 0.5), high biodiversity

scores (greater than 0.4) and area of at least 100 km2

STEP 4: FILTERING BY SITE CATEGORY

A final element that will help you target your analysis, and selected sites, are the site category buttons (figure

8). All sites included in the A.P.E.S. Dashboard can be classified into three categories: Landscapes, Action

Plan Sites, and Protected Areas. These categories reflect both the scale and definition of the sites. Landscapes

are the largest sites defined by CARPE and Arcus Foundation consultants. Action plan sites are intermediate

in scale and were defined within the great ape species action plans. Protected areas sites are those sites with a

national protection status where apes are thought to occur. Full details of the Important Apes Sites, and their

definition, is given in the methodology document.

By default, all three categories of site are selected. When selected the buttons appear in blue (figure 8).

Selections based on all combinations of the site categories are possible (figure 9).


Figure 8. The location of the Important Ape Site category filters/buttons.

Figure 9. Filtering Important Apes Sites. The exemplified results include only sites defined via a species action

plan.


STEP 5: OUTPUTS

The A.P.E.S. Dashboard features three different outputs to support Important Ape Site analysis. These are a

graph, map and table. Each of these elements can be visualised within the Dashboard (figure 10).

Figure 10. Visualization of A.P.E.S. Dashboard outputs.

GRAPH

The most informative of all outputs, the graph enables the visualization of four dimensions, that is, the

Pressure score, Habitat score, Response/Biodiversity score, and IAS area (figure 11). It is the relative position,

colour and size of the sites which needs the most consideration.

Figure 11. The A.P.E.S. Dashboard Graphical output.


Key interpretation elements on the graph are:

a) Pressure: The Y-axis expresses the overall site pressure score. A high pressure score indicates that

one (or more) taxon at that site encounters high pressure relative to the values found in its extent of

occurence.

b) Habitat: The X-axis expresses the overall site habitat score. A high habitat score indicates that one

(or more) taxon at that site encounters high amounts of tree cover (canopy cover) relative to (a) the

taxons preferred habitat structure and (b) vegetation cover found in its extent of occurrence.

c) Response: Darker colours (brown), on the response scale, indicate higher values. A darker coloured

site has a higher protection extent and/or protection category than a lighter coloured site.

d) Biodiversity: Darker colours (dark-blue), on the biodiversity scale, indicate higher values. A darker

coloured site has the potential to contain a relatively high number of vertebrate species (when

compared within a region), a high proportion of threatened vertebrate species and/or relatively high

carbon stock (when compared within a region).

The response and biodiversity scores are visualised one at a time on the graph. You therefore need to select

the variable of interest by clicking on the “show” button next to the slider bar (figure 12).

Figure 12. Showing sites response or biodiversity scores on the graph.

e) Combining pressure and habitat: A significant advantage of a graphical output is the ability to

compare the relative value of sites on the pressure and habitat score axes simultaneously. Proactive

and reactive conservation priorities can be easily considered via the sub-division of the graph into

four quadrants (figure 11). If you are considering a reactive approach sites with higher vulnerability in

the upper quadrants will be of most interest. These quadrants contain sites with high pressure scores,

indicative of sites under immediate threat of destruction. Conversely, if you are considering a

proactive approach sites in the lower quadrants will prove more interesting. Sites falling within these


quadrants have the potential to be preserved against future threats, either with good habitat

condition or with the potential for rehabilitation.

MAP

The spatial context of Important Ape Sites is best analysed via the map display. The background map enables

you to explore the position of the site relative to major urban areas, roads and rivers (figure 13). Datasets

included in the scoring of sites such as population, deforestation and forest cover are also included in the

map display (figure 13). It should be noted that the map display contains aggregated Extent of Occurrence

maps for the Gibbon species. Aggregation to the Genus was required to provide a clear cartographic display.

This generalisation to the Genus level is only for display purposes. As per the other ape species Gibbons are

analysed to the most detailed taxonomic level available (see methodology document for details).

Figure 13. Dashboard outputs allow site locations to be mapped against (a) a background layer showing roads,

cities and rivers, and (b) datasets included in the scoring of sites.


TABLES

The graph does not display the actual values for the pressure and habitat scoring components. Detailed site

comparisons are therefore reliant upon the values included in the summary table. Two tables are available for

download (figure 14). The simplified tables (as displayed on the website) include a summary of site scores

only. The detailed results tables (available for download only) include all scoring component values plus

additional information in the form of actual parameter values, for example, average percent deforestation.

Figure 14. A.P.E.S. Dashboard tabular output.


ANSWERING QUESTIONS WITH A.P.E.S. DASHBOARD

There are two possible scenarios when starting your analysis: (a) you have particular species or countries of

interest, or (b) you have no specification but wish to explore a range of ape conservation options. We will

work through an example in order to show the full functionality of the A.P.E.S. Dashboard and the questions

it can help answer including:

Which are the most/least threatened important ape sites and where are they?

What is the protection status of important ape sites?

Which important ape sites are most significant for other species and ecosystem services?

CASE STUDY: CONSERVING CHIMPANZEES IN THE CONGO BASIN.

In this example a hypothetical user is interested in Chimpanzee conservation (Eastern, Western, Central and

Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzees) within the Congo Basin. The first steps in setting up this analysis are to (1)

select Africa as the region of interest on the landing page, (2) select all chimpanzee taxa in the Taxa filter

(figure 15a) and (3) select, from the Countries filter, all countries that are part of the Congo Basin (Cameroon,

Central African Republic, Gabon, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, and Tanzania)

(figure 15b).

Figure 15 (a): Selecting the Chimpanzee taxa

Figure 15 (b): selecting countries of the Congo basin

The A.P.E.S. Dashboard identifies 159 Important Ape Sites where actions towards the conservation of

chimpanzees in the Congo Basin could take place (figures 16 to 18). At this point three basic questions can be

answered:

Which are the most/least threatened important ape sites and where are they?

By dividing the graph into quadrants you can easily identify the group of sites under highest relative

pressure, either with low or high relative habitat condition (upper-left and upper-right quadrants,

respectively) (figure 19). The hover function allows you to identify the sites on the graph, and with

this site ID it is possible to locate sites on the map (figure 17 and 18).

What is the protection status of important ape sites?

The colour gradient in the response slider bar allows you to easily identify in the graph those sites

with higher/lower response scores. Given that the response score is a combination of protection

category and extent, using the colour scale and hover function you are able to identify the protection


status of different sites (figure 16). A high Response score, shown with darker colours, is indicative of a

higher protection extent and/or protection category than a lighter coloured site.

Which important ape sites are most important for other species and ecosystem services?

The colour gradient in the biodiversity slider bar allows you to easily identify in the graph those sites

with higher/lower biodiversity scores. The biodiversity score is a combination of non-ape species

richness and carbon stocks within the site (figure 17). Therefore, sites with a high value (darker

colours) have the potential to contain a relatively high number of vertebrate species, a high

proportion of threatened vertebrate species and/or relatively high carbon stock.

Figure 16. Case study results showing the response variable


Figure 17. Case study results showing the biodiversity variable. The hover function is used to identify a site of

interest.

Figure 18. Identifying sites on the map using the identify tool. The identify tool is used to find a site of interest.


Figure 19. Identifying and locating the most threatened sites


The previous analysis has identified a selection of Important Ape Sites (IASs). However, in order to target

your conservation actions you need to start thinking about your conservation priorities and options. In this

example, we are going to use the scenario that the user is only interested in sites that were defined by the

Apes conservation community as an ape action plan site. To meet this criterion and refine the list of sites you

need to un-select Protected Areas and Landscapes (figure 20). This reduces results to 51 possible IASs.

Figure 20. Case study results filtered to include only Action Plan Sites

Continuing with the example, the user’s conservation strategy is to increase the protection level of Important

Ape Sites. Simultaneously, they would like to protect the sites with highest biodiversity scores. Given that the

proposed conservation action in this example is to protect sites, to be considered it is specified that sites

should have a maximum area of 10,000 km2. You can narrow down the 51 sites to fulfil these requirements by:

1. Moving the right-hand Response slider to 0.5 (figure 21)

2. Moving the left-hand Biodiversity slider to the mid-point of the slider bar (figure 21)

3. Typing “10,000” in the right-hand box of the IAS Area slider bar (figure 21)


Figure 21. Case study results filtered by Response, Biodiversity and Area criteria

In this example, by using funding restrictions, interests and possible conservation strategies the A.P.E.S.

Dashboard helped identify a subset of 9 sites (out of 347) where conservation actions could support the

conservation of apes in Africa. These sites can be further explored and refined with specific analysis, study

and data collection.

There is no “one” answer when using the A.P.E.S. Dashboard, which sites most need conservation actions will

depend on who is using the tool, what their priorities are, and which conservation actions are to be applied.

This is why interpretation of the results is crucial. These results can be visualised and further analysed using

the graph, map and tables to answer more detailed questions.

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE FINAL SUBSET OF SITES

More detailed questions that the A.P.E.S. Dashboard outputs can help to answer are demonstrated below.

1. Which sites should be prioritised?

The selection of sites to receive future conservation action depends on the desired conservation approach

whether it is to prioritise high vulnerability sites or the preservation of good-quality low vulnerability

sites (figure 22).


Figure 22. Proactive and reactive conservation approaches superimposed on the refined case study results.

2. Which sites are under the most/least pressure?

From the graph you can clearly distinguish the highest/lowest pressure scores (figure 23). There are several

sites grouped in the middle of the pressure axis. The pressure scores for these sites are very similar and

additional external information is required in order to differentiate between them.

Figure 23. Identifying sites with the highest and lowest relative pressure scores.


3. Where are the sites under most/least pressure?

The locations of the 9 sites in the final selection are displayed in the map (figures 24). Sites are shaded in

black on the map. The identify function (activated by clicking on sites), when combined with the graph,

enables the identification of sites with the highest/lowest pressure scores.

Figure 24. An example map for a subset of the case study results. Site 48 has been highlighted with the

identify tool.

4. How does the location of sites vary relative to know threats?

The pressure score for each site was calculated using datasets as proxies for threat. Datasets utilised

include, deforestation (%), the human influence index, human population change (%) and human

population count. These datasets have been added as layers that can be displayed in the map. These

layers will enable you to visualize the location of sites relative to these threats (figures 25 and 26). The

base map enables you to explore the position of the site relative to major urban areas, roads and rivers.

In the case study, a visual interpretation of the human population change layers reveals that Important

Ape Site 1036, “Virunga” is located next to an area that has experienced relatively high population growth,

as indicated by the darker coloured census districts (figure 25), when compared to the areas adjacent to

remaining sites (figure 26).


Figure 25. Human population change, as an exemplified threat data layer which can be visualised in the map.

Figure 26. Comparing the context of Important Ape Sites relative to changes in the human population layer.


5. Which sites have the highest/lowest habitat condition and what is their location relative to high vegetation

cover areas?

In the same way that questions three and four were answered, by looking at the habitat scores, displaying

the forest cover layer in the map, and using the hover function the highest/lowest habitat score sites can

be identified (figure 27). The location of these sites relative to high forest cover areas can be explored in

the map (figure 28). In this example, all sites have a very similar, relatively high habitat score.

Figure 27. Case study sites with the highest/lowest relative habitat scores.

Figure 28. Comparing sites to the forest cover layer. Note: darker colours indicate a greater proportion of

vegetative cover.


6. Which sites have no/the most protection and where are they?

The colour scale in the response slider bar allows you to easily identify in the graph those sites with the

highest/lowest response scores. A high response score (darker colours - brown) is indicative of a higher

protection extent and/or protection category than a lighter coloured site. Conversely, a lighter colour

(yellow) is indicative of a lower protection extent or protection category. In this example, there are three

sites with little or no protection, as indicated by a response score of zero (figure 29). The remaining five

sites have a score (and colour) which ranges between 0 and 0.5 (that is, the highest values within the

selected range of values).

Figure 29. Comparing the case study sites on the basis of their response scores.


7. Which sites have highest biodiversity score and where are they?

The colour scale in the biodiversity slider bar allows you to easily identify in the graph those sites with the

highest/lowest biodiversity scores. Sites with a high value (darker coloured, dark-blue) have the potential

to contain a relatively high number of vertebrate species, a high proportion of threatened vertebrate

species and/or relatively high carbon stock. In this example the biodiversity scores for all sites are very

similar (figure 30), ranging between 0.46 and 0.62 (where 0.4 is the lowest value within the selected

range). This similarity of values makes comparisons harder, but the hover function helps identify the

relative score values for each of the sites (figure 30).

Figure 30. Comparing the case study sites on the basis of their biodiversity scores


To make detailed site comparisons you will need to combine the graph and tabular outputs of the A.P.E.S

Dashboard. This is essential as the graph does not display the actual values for each of the scoring

components. The following questions exemplify how to combine these two elements.

8. Which taxa are present in the different sites? Are there multiple taxa?

Counting from left to right, the 9th column of the summary table displays which taxa (of those selected for

analysis) are present at the site (figure 31). It should be noted that the site may contain more ape taxa than

those listed. The list considers only whether the taxa of interest (those selected in the filter) occur in a given

site. The analysis taxa present field provides two types of information: (a) if all apes are selected, it enables

the identification of multiple taxa occurring at the same site; and (b) based on the initial taxa selection, it

provides valuable detail to support the refining process. For example, in our case study seven out of nine sites

that result from the analysis are sites where “pte” occurs (Pan troglodytes ellioti, Nigeria-Cameroon

chimpanzee, see Methodology document for a complete list of taxa codes). Given the refining criteria (all

Action Plan Sites in the Congo Basin where chimpanzees occur, protection is low and biodiversity is high)

this dominance of “pte” sites could be interpreted that, of all Action Plan Sites in the Congo Basin where

chimpanzees occur and biodiversity is high, the Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee is the taxon with the most

unprotected Action Plan Sites.

Figure 31. Summary results table for the case study sites. The ‘Analysis Taxa Present’ column is highlighted.


9. Are there any differences in the confidence surrounding the scores for the different IASs?

The last column in the summary table displays the uncertainty score for each site (figure 32). The

uncertainty score provides a relative estimate of the confidence surrounding scores derived for a given

Important Ape Site. Varying levels of uncertainty between sites are a consequence of two elements, (a)

the extent of the analysed area, and (b) dataset availability.

It should be noted that the uncertainty value is a score (from 0 to 1). Consequently, it should not be

interpreted as an absolute accuracy value. The utility of uncertainty scores is to compare the relative

values between sites, not the absolute value. In the example case study, when sites are compared, the

“Tubah-Awing” site (number 65) and “Mount Kupe” site (number 56) have almost double the uncertainty

score of remaining sites. This indicates that the scores associated with these sites should be interpreted

with more caution.

Figure 32. Summary results table for the case study sites. The ‘Uncertainty’ column is highlighted.

10. Which threat proxy is driving the pressure score for the site?

The relative pressure on ape populations within a specified Important Ape Site, was calculated via a

set of proxies (human population, deforestation, human influence index, and temporal changes in

habitat suitability). The definition of the overall pressure score is the maximum score derived from

any of the four proxies for a taxon. This taxon specific pressure score is available in the detailed result

table (download only). Counting from left to right, the 8th column (“Main Pressure”) in the detailed

results table (download only) displays the main pressure determining the Pressure score (figure 33)

for a given taxon at a given site. In this case study, HII (human influence index) is the main pressure

for all 8 Important Ape Sites.


Figure 33. A subset of the detailed table results (download only) for the case study sites. The ‘Main Pressure’

column is highlighted.

11. What are the actual parameter values for the different threat proxies measured for each site?

The scoring of Important Ape Sites is primarily based on the mean environmental/pressure conditions

encountered, but these parameters are normalised to produce scores which describe the relative score of

the site for the particular taxon being analysed. Counting from left to right, columns fourteen to twenty-

two in the detailed results table (download only) display the main parameter values used for scores

estimations for each site: Mean Forest Cover (2005) (%), Mean Deforestation (2000 - 2005) (%), Mean

Human Influence Index, Mean Population Count (2000), Mean Population Change (1990 - 2000) (%),

Protection Extent (%), Maximum Species Richness (MSR), Proportion MSR Threatened (%), and Mean

Carbon Stock (tonnes/ha).

12. If it is an Action Plan Site, is it a priority conservation area or survey area?

Action plans for African apes usually include two broad categories of priority areas: priority conservation

areas and priority survey areas. The last column in the detailed results table (download only) displays any

additional available information for the site. Additional information is a function of the site types, for

example, protected areas include their unique global ID (WDPAID) and designation, landscapes outline

the organisation responsible for the delineation/definition of the site and action plan sites identify the

specific species action plan and priority site category.

This example demonstrates some of the questions that can be answered with the A.P.E.S. Dashboard.

However, it is not an exhaustive list. As previously stated, there is no unique answer when using the A.P.E.S.

Dashboard; results will depend on who is using the tool, what their priorities are, and which conservation

actions are to be applied. The dashboard enables users to identify a subset of focal sites that match different

conservation strategies, but results should be further refined through detailed analysis, study and data

collection to guide conservation actions within the final group of sites.