AS WE SEE IT Harmonization of Red Lists in Europe: some lessons learned in the Netherlands when applying the new IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version 3.1.

By H. Iongh, D. Bal. 2007

278 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Marine turtles and IUCN Red Listing: A review of the process, the pitfalls, and novel assessment approaches (2008, background): “…the Red List Criteria for regional assessments (Gärdenfors et al., 2001, IUCN, 2003), which have been used with a variety of taxa including marine turtles (Amorocho, 2003; Eaton et al., 2005; De Iongh and Bal, 2007), regional assessments per se are not eligible for inclusion on the IUCN Red List.”
Troubled waters: Threats and extinction risk of the sharks, rays and chimaeras of the Arabian Sea and adjacent waters (2018, methodology): “A species is listed as DD if there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status (IUCN, 2016).”
The use of opportunistic data for IUCN Red List assessments (2015, methodology): “Some countries continue to use national Red List criteria and categories instead of those of the IUCN criteria because they judge them unusable in smaller regions (e.g., the Netherlands – de Iongh & Bal, 2007).”
Climate change amplifies plant invasion hotspots in Nepal (2019, methodology): “For all species, we built a minimum convex hull (MCH) around current locations of a species to determine the extent of their occurrence (IUCN, 2012; Wright, Hijmans, Schwartz, & Shaffer, 2015; Figure S1).”