Substantial geographic range loss has occurred in over half of the ~12,000 species of animals currently listed by the IUCN as globally threatened (Criterion B: IUCN 2016). An ability to forecast which parts of species’ geographic range (hereafter range) are most at risk of local extinction would improve predictions of both global extinction probability and the consequences for ecosystems where those local extinctions take place. However, while the general spatial pattern of range change, specifically whether ranges decline toward the core or edge, has been the subject of much theoretical discussion and empirical research (e.g. Hanski 1982; Channell & Lomolino 2000a; Sagarin et al. 2006; Pironon et al. 2015), little consensus has emerged. Some studies conclude that species decline toward their range core (Nathan et al. 1996; Donald & Greenwood 2001; Yackulic et al. 2011) and others toward their periphery (Channell & Lomolino 2000a; Farnsworth & Ogurcak 2006; Fisher 2011). Many studies have focussed on understanding the evolutionary mechanisms behind range change, for example by determining the distribution of abundance (e.g. Blackburn et al. 1999; Sagarin & Gaines 2002) or genetic diversity (e.g. Hampe & Petit 2005; Eckert et al. 2008) across species’ ranges. However, the recent scale of anthropogenic processes driving biodiversity loss may now overwhelm any such natural patterns (Yackulic et al. 2011; Lucas et al. 2016). Drivers of change such as coastal settlement or deforestation that move contagiously across the landscape could lead to increased vulnerability of range edges (Boakes et al. 2010a). Alternatively, since species’ ranges and ecosystem boundaries are often not identical, and with the spatial reach of anthropogenic disturbance larger than ever before (Sanderson et al. 2002), species might be equally vulnerable across their entire range.