Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in IUCN Red List status assessments
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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2015-07-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fevo.2015.00087/full |
| _version_ | 1811212296697937920 |
|---|---|
| author | Matt W Hayward Matt W Hayward Matt W Hayward Matthew F Child Graham I. H. Kerley Peter A. Lindsey Peter A. Lindsey Michael John Somers Bruce eBurns |
| author_facet | Matt W Hayward Matt W Hayward Matt W Hayward Matthew F Child Graham I. H. Kerley Peter A. Lindsey Peter A. Lindsey Michael John Somers Bruce eBurns |
| author_sort | Matt W Hayward |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. In such an information vacuum, assessors make assumptions depending on their level of Red List experience (subconscious bias) and their personal values or agendas (conscious bias). We highlight two major issues where such bias influences assessments: relating to fenced subpopulations that require intensive management; and defining benchmark geographic distributions and thus the inclusion/exclusion of introduced subpopulations. We suggest assessor bias can be reduced by refining the Red List guidelines to include quantified thresholds for when to include fenced/intensively managed subpopulations or subpopulations outside the benchmark distribution; publishing case studies of difficult assessments to enhance cohesion between Specialist Groups; developing an online accreditation course on applying Red List criteria as a prerequisite for assessors; and ensuring that assessments of species subject to trade and utilisation are represented by all dissenting views (for example, both utilitarian and preservationist) and reviewed by relevant Specialist Groups. We believe these interventions would ensure consistent, reliable assessments of threatened species between regions and across assessors with divergent views, and will thus improve comparisons between taxa and counteract the use of Red List assessments as a tool |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:26:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7a0ef2bbc18a4c928fde9535bcda999a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2296-701X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:26:45Z |
| publishDate | 2015-07-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution |
| spelling | doaj.art-7a0ef2bbc18a4c928fde9535bcda999a2022-12-22T03:46:14ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution2296-701X2015-07-01310.3389/fevo.2015.00087148930Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in IUCN Red List status assessmentsMatt W Hayward0Matt W Hayward1Matt W Hayward2Matthew F Child3Graham I. H. Kerley4Peter A. Lindsey5Peter A. Lindsey6Michael John Somers7Bruce eBurns8Bangor UniversityNelson Mandela Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of PretoriaEndangered Wildlife TrustNelson Mandela Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of PretoriaPantheraUniversity of PretoriaAuckland UniversityThe 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. In such an information vacuum, assessors make assumptions depending on their level of Red List experience (subconscious bias) and their personal values or agendas (conscious bias). We highlight two major issues where such bias influences assessments: relating to fenced subpopulations that require intensive management; and defining benchmark geographic distributions and thus the inclusion/exclusion of introduced subpopulations. We suggest assessor bias can be reduced by refining the Red List guidelines to include quantified thresholds for when to include fenced/intensively managed subpopulations or subpopulations outside the benchmark distribution; publishing case studies of difficult assessments to enhance cohesion between Specialist Groups; developing an online accreditation course on applying Red List criteria as a prerequisite for assessors; and ensuring that assessments of species subject to trade and utilisation are represented by all dissenting views (for example, both utilitarian and preservationist) and reviewed by relevant Specialist Groups. We believe these interventions would ensure consistent, reliable assessments of threatened species between regions and across assessors with divergent views, and will thus improve comparisons between taxa and counteract the use of Red List assessments as a toolhttp://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fevo.2015.00087/fullBiodiversityIUCN Red listThreatened speciesConservation status assessmentConservation benchmarkassessor bias |
| spellingShingle | Matt W Hayward Matt W Hayward Matt W Hayward Matthew F Child Graham I. H. Kerley Peter A. Lindsey Peter A. Lindsey Michael John Somers Bruce eBurns Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in IUCN Red List status assessments Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution Biodiversity IUCN Red list Threatened species Conservation status assessment Conservation benchmark assessor bias |
| title | Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in IUCN Red List status assessments |
| title_full | Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in IUCN Red List status assessments |
| title_fullStr | Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in IUCN Red List status assessments |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in IUCN Red List status assessments |
| title_short | Ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in IUCN Red List status assessments |
| title_sort | ambiguity in guideline definitions introduces assessor bias and influences consistency in iucn red list status assessments |
| topic | Biodiversity IUCN Red list Threatened species Conservation status assessment Conservation benchmark assessor bias |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fevo.2015.00087/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mattwhayward ambiguityinguidelinedefinitionsintroducesassessorbiasandinfluencesconsistencyiniucnredliststatusassessments AT mattwhayward ambiguityinguidelinedefinitionsintroducesassessorbiasandinfluencesconsistencyiniucnredliststatusassessments AT mattwhayward ambiguityinguidelinedefinitionsintroducesassessorbiasandinfluencesconsistencyiniucnredliststatusassessments AT matthewfchild ambiguityinguidelinedefinitionsintroducesassessorbiasandinfluencesconsistencyiniucnredliststatusassessments AT grahamihkerley ambiguityinguidelinedefinitionsintroducesassessorbiasandinfluencesconsistencyiniucnredliststatusassessments AT peteralindsey ambiguityinguidelinedefinitionsintroducesassessorbiasandinfluencesconsistencyiniucnredliststatusassessments AT peteralindsey ambiguityinguidelinedefinitionsintroducesassessorbiasandinfluencesconsistencyiniucnredliststatusassessments AT michaeljohnsomers ambiguityinguidelinedefinitionsintroducesassessorbiasandinfluencesconsistencyiniucnredliststatusassessments AT bruceeburns ambiguityinguidelinedefinitionsintroducesassessorbiasandinfluencesconsistencyiniucnredliststatusassessments |