hello 
Regarding Criteria model Scores CSV example of the Habitat Risk Assessment : In the natural mortality rate rating instruction, the rating is <enter (3) 0-20%, (2) 20-50%, (1) >80% mortality, or (0) no score>. However, in all other criteria, the number 1 is the best option and not number 3 (I am intentionally not referring to number 0). Lower mortality should be a better scenario and therefore should be rated as number 1. Is there something that I am missing or misunderstanding?
the same for “frequency of disturbance” rating instruction
Waiting for an answer
Hi @Ymande,
Across all criteria, a higher number for the score (e.g., 3) indicates higher exposure or consequence, which leads to higher risk, as you note.
In the case of natural mortality rate and frequency of natural disturbance, both these are meant to represent the natural or background rate of mortality or disturbance that species or habitats experience. Species or habitats with higher natural rates of mortality or disturbance are expected to be more resilient to stressors, so should receive a score of 1, indicating that stressors will be less consequential.
You can find more details in the User’s Guide here.
Thank you very much for the explanation.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.