Table 3.
Rank attribution in the compound ranking system (CRS) method (adapted from Magos Brehm et al. [21])
| Criteria | Rank of sub-criteria | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | R8 | R9 | R10 | R11 | |
| Species origin | Native | Exotic | Doubtfully native | No data | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Economic value | High | Average | Low | No data | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Ethnobotanical value | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | No data | – |
| Global distribution | WA | WA + 1 region | WA + 2 regions | WA + 3 regions | Africa | World | No data | – | – | – | – |
| National distribution | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | No data |
| Conservation status | in situ | ex situ | Other | No data | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Legislation | International | National | Local | No data | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Threatened status | CR | EN | VU | NT | LC | DD | NE | – | – | – | – |
WA West Africa, CR critically endangered, EN endangered, VU vulnerable, NT near threatened, LC least concern, DD data deficient, NE not evaluated