Short communication: Commentary: IUCN classifications under uncertainty

  • Authors:
  • H. ReşIt AkçAkaya;Scott Ferson;Mark A. Burgman;David A. Keith;Georgina M. Mace;Charles R. Todd

  • Affiliations:
  • Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, NY, USA;Applied Biomathematics, 100 North Country Road, Setauket, NY, USA;School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia;Australian Wetlands and Rivers Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia and New South Wales Office of Environment & Heritage, Hurstville, Australia;Centre for Population Biology and Division of Biology, Imperial College, London, UK;Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia

  • Venue:
  • Environmental Modelling & Software
  • Year:
  • 2012

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

We comment on a recent article by Newton (Environ. Model. Softw. (2010), 25, 15-23), which proposed a method, based on a Bayesian belief networks, for classifying the threat status of species under the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, and compared this method to an earlier one that we had developed that is based on fuzzy logic. There are three types of differences between the results of the two methods, the most consequential of which is different threat status categories assigned to some species for which the input data were uncertain. We demonstrate that the results obtained using the fuzzy logic approach are consistent with IUCN Red List criteria and guidelines. The application of Bayesian Networks to the IUCN Red List criteria to assist uncertain risk assessments may yet have merit. However, in order to be consistent with IUCN Red List assessments, applications of Bayesian approaches to actual Red List assessments would need an explicit and objective method for assigning likelihoods based on uncertain data.