Use of IUCN Red Listing process as a basis for assessing biodiversity threats and impacts in environmental impact assessment
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21154155 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter-John Meynell (International Union for Conservation of Nature (Bangladesh), corresponding author) |
| Year | 2005 |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 65-72 |
| Publication date | 2005-03-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1461-5517 • E-ISSN: 1471-5465 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.3152/147154605781765689 |
| OpenAlex | W2097414137 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
The impact of developments on biodiversity is a critical aspect to be considered in environmental impact assessment (EIA). The Red Listing process has been developed by IUCN — The World Conservation Union — to assess changes in the degree of threat to species. It assesses the status of a species according to such criteria as population size and rate of change, distribution and its rate of change, and threats to population numbers and/or habitat. It uses a systematic but pragmatic approach, and available information to assess status. It can be used in EIA to determine the extent to which key endangered species might be affected by a proposal. It can also be used to evaluate the degree of threat to a species before and after a development is implemented. The benefits of using such a tool rest on an established methodology and criteria for assessment. This paper explains the Red Listing process and provides examples from SE Asia to illustrate its potential application in EIA
Biodiversity · Biology · Business · Endangered species · Environmental impact assessment · Environmental planning · Environmental resource management · European union · Geography · Habitat · Impact assessment · IUCN Red List · Political science · Population · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments · Environmental Science · Ecology
| Citations per year | 0.13 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2010 - 2016 (7) |
| Highly cited | No |