Title |
A practical guide to the application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria
|
---|---|
Published in |
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, February 2015
|
DOI | 10.1098/rstb.2014.0003 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jon Paul Rodríguez, David A. Keith, Kathryn M. Rodríguez-Clark, Nicholas J. Murray, Emily Nicholson, Tracey J. Regan, Rebecca M. Miller, Edmund G. Barrow, Lucie M. Bland, Kaia Boe, Thomas M. Brooks, María A. Oliveira-Miranda, Mark Spalding, Piet Wit |
Abstract |
The newly developed IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is part of a growing toolbox for assessing risks to biodiversity, which addresses ecosystems and their functioning. The Red List of Ecosystems standard allows systematic assessment of all freshwater, marine, terrestrial and subterranean ecosystem types in terms of their global risk of collapse. In addition, the Red List of Ecosystems categories and criteria provide a technical base for assessments of ecosystem status at the regional, national, or subnational level. While the Red List of Ecosystems criteria were designed to be widely applicable by scientists and practitioners, guidelines are needed to ensure they are implemented in a standardized manner to reduce epistemic uncertainties and allow robust comparisons among ecosystems and over time. We review the intended application of the Red List of Ecosystems assessment process, summarize 'best-practice' methods for ecosystem assessments and outline approaches to ensure operational rigour of assessments. The Red List of Ecosystems will inform priority setting for ecosystem types worldwide, and strengthen capacity to report on progress towards the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. When integrated with other IUCN knowledge products, such as the World Database of Protected Areas/Protected Planet, Key Biodiversity Areas and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the Red List of Ecosystems will contribute to providing the most complete global measure of the status of biodiversity yet achieved. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Colombia | 1 | 11% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
Mexico | 1 | 11% |
Australia | 1 | 11% |
Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 1% |
Brazil | 3 | <1% |
Colombia | 2 | <1% |
Australia | 2 | <1% |
Italy | 2 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
Kenya | 1 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Austria | 1 | <1% |
Other | 2 | <1% |
Unknown | 343 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 76 | 21% |
Student > Master | 54 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 48 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 38 | 10% |
Other | 23 | 6% |
Other | 56 | 15% |
Unknown | 68 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 118 | 33% |
Environmental Science | 113 | 31% |
Earth and Planetary Sciences | 14 | 4% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 6 | 2% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 1% |
Other | 23 | 6% |
Unknown | 84 | 23% |