publication . Article . 2015

Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in IUCN Red List status assessments

Matt W. Hayward; Matthew F. Child; Graham I. H. Kerley; Peter A. Lindsey; Michael J. Somers; Bruce R. Burns;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 Jul 2015 Journal: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, volume 3 (eissn: 2296-701X, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Abstract
The IUCN Red List is the most widely used tool to measure extinction risk and report biodiversity trends. Accurate and standardised conservation status assessments for the IUCN Red List are limited by a lack of adequate information; and need consistent and unbiased interpretation of that information. Variable interpretation stems from a lack of quantified thresholds in certain areas of the Red List guidelines. Thus, even in situations with sufficient information to make a Red List assessment, inconsistency can occur when experts, especially from different regions, interpret the guidelines differently, thereby undermining the goals and credibility of the process....
Persistent Identifiers
Subjects
free text keywords: Biodiversity, IUCN Red list, Threatened species, Conservation status assessment, Conservation benchmark, assessor bias, Publishing, business.industry, business, Credibility, Environmental resource management, Ambiguity, media_common.quotation_subject, media_common, Accreditation, IUCN Red List, Actuarial science, Psychology, Conservation status, Psychological intervention, Threatened species, lcsh:Evolution, lcsh:QH359-425, lcsh:Ecology, lcsh:QH540-549.5
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue