Effect of information availability on assessment and designation of species at risk

Conservation Biology

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1398-1406

  Lukey, James R ^a   Crawford, Stephen S ^b   Gillis, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^b Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cosewic; Information availability; Iucn; Precautionary approach; Quantitative criteria; SARA; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CONSERVATION STATUS; DECISION MAKING; ENDANGERED SPECIES; EXTINCTION RISK; INFORMATION SYSTEM; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CANADA; ECOSYSTEM; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STATISTICS;

ALGORITHMS; CANADA; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DATA COLLECTION; ECOSYSTEM; ENDANGERED SPECIES; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

CANADA;

EID: 77957136444     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01555.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Akçakaya H R, Ferson S, Burgman M A, Keith D A, Mace G M, Todd C R. Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty. Conservation Biology 2000, 14:1001-1013.
2. Ando A W. Waiting to be protected under the Endangered Species Act: the political economy of regulatory delay. Journal of Law and Economics 1999, 42:29-60.
3. Burgman M A, Keith D A, Walshe T V. Uncertainty in comparative risk analysis for threatened Australian plant species. Risk Analysis 1999, 19:585-598.
4. COSEWIC operations and procedures manual. 2005, COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada), COSEWIC, Gatineau, Quebec
5. COSEWIC's assessment process and criteria. 2008a, http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/assessment_process_e.cfm, COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada), COSEWIC, Gatineau, Quebec, Available from, accessed March 2009
6. Flathead catfish. COSEWIC, Gatineau, Quebec. 2008b, http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchform_e.cfm, COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada), Available from, accessed October 2009
7. Doremus H. The purposes, effects, and future of the Endangered Species Act's best available science mandate. Environmental Law 2004, 34:397-450.
8. COSEWIC releases results of species assessment meeting. Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec. 2001, http://www.ec.gc.ca/media_archive/press/2001/010503-2_n_e.htm, Environment Canada, Available from, accessed August 2009
9. Gärdenfors U, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace G M, Rodríguez J P. The application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. Conservation Biology 2001, 15:1206-1212.
10. Garnett S, Crowley G, Balmford A. The costs and effectiveness of funding the conservation of Australian threatened birds. BioScience 2003, 53:658-665.
11. Gerrodette T, Dayton P K, Macinko S, Fogarty M J. Precautionary management of marine fisheries: moving beyond burden of proof. Bulletin of Marine Science 2002, 70:657-668.
12. Gregory R, Long G. Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management. Risk Analysis 2009, 29:518-532.
13. Hoffmann M. Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List. Endangered Species Research 2008, 6:113-125.
14. Hutchings J A, Reynolds J D. Marine fish population collapses: consequences for recovery and extinction risk. BioScience 2004, 54:297-309.
15. Innes R, Polasky S, Tschirhart J. Takings, compensation and endangered species protection on private lands. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1998, 12:35-52.
16. IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 3.1. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 2001, http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria/2001-categories-criteria, IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Available from, accessed November 2009
17. Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 7.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 2008, http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/redlist_guidelines_v1223290226.pdf, IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Available from, accessed April 2009
18. Keith D A, Auld T D, Ooi M K J, Mackenzie B D E. Sensitivity analyses of decision rules in World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List criteria using Australian plants. Biological Conservation 2000, 94:311-319.
19. Keith D A. Protocols for listing threatened species can forecast extinction. Ecology Letters 2004, 2004:1101-1108.
20. Lauck T, Clark C W, Mangel M, Munro G R. Implementing the precautionary principle in fisheries management through marine reserves. Ecological Applications 1998, 8:S72-S78.
21. Lukey J R, Crawford S S. Consistency of COSEWIC species at risk designations: freshwater fishes as a case study. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2009, 66:959-971.
22. Marcot B G, Holhenlohe P A, Morey S, Holmes R, Molina R, Turley M C, Huff M H, Laurence J A. Characterizing species at risk II: using Bayesian belief networks as decision support tools to determine species conservation categories under the Northwest Forest Plan. Ecology and Society 2006, 11. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss12/art12/, Available from, accessed November 2009
23. McGarvey D J. Merging precaution with sound science under the Endangered Species Act. BioScience 2007, 57:65-70.
24. O'Grady J J, Burgman M A, Keith D A, Master L L, Andelman S J, Brook B W, Hammerson G A, Regan T, Frankham R. Correlations among extinction risks assessed by different systems of threatened species catergorization. Conservation Biology 2004, 18:1624-1635.
25. Ready R C, Bishop R C. Endangered species and the safe minimum standard. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1991, 73:309-312.
26. Regan H M, Colyvan M, Burgman M A. A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications 2002, 12:618-628.
27. Rodrigues A S L, Pilgrim J D, Lamoreux J F, Hoffmann M, Brooks T M. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2006, 21:71-76.
28. Schemske D W, Husband B C, Ruckelshaus M H, Goodwillie C, Parker I M, Bishop J G. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 1994, 75:585-606.
29. Stokstad E. What's wrong with the Endangered Species Act?. Science 2005, 209:2150-2152.
30. Vanderzwaag D L, Hutchings J A. Canada's marine species at risk: science and law at the helm, but a sea of uncertainties. Ocean Development and International Law 2005, 36:219-259.
31. Woodward R T, Bishop R C. How to decide when experts disagree: uncertainty-based choice rules in environmental policy. Land Economics 1997, 73:492-507.