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

摘要: The IUCN Red List is the most widely used tool to measure extinction risk and report biodiversity trends. Accurate standardised conservation status assessments for are limited by a lack of adequate information; need consistent unbiased interpretation that information. Variable stems from quantified thresholds in certain areas guidelines. Thus, even situations with sufficient information make assessment, inconsistency can occur when experts, especially different regions, interpret guidelines differently, thereby undermining goals credibility process. In such an vacuum, assessors assumptions depending on their level experience (subconscious bias) personal values or agendas (conscious bias). We highlight two major issues where bias influences assessments: relating fenced subpopulations require intensive management; defining benchmark geographic distributions thus inclusion/exclusion introduced subpopulations. suggest assessor be reduced refining include fenced/intensively managed outside distribution; publishing case studies difficult enhance cohesion between Specialist Groups; developing online accreditation course applying criteria as prerequisite assessors; ensuring species subject trade utilisation represented all dissenting views (for example, both utilitarian preservationist) reviewed relevant Groups. believe these interventions would ensure consistent, reliable threatened regions across divergent views, will improve comparisons taxa counteract use