4.6 Review

Strengthening the Scientific Basis of Ecosystem Collapse Risk Assessments

期刊

LAND
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land10111252

关键词

ecosystem collapse; biodiversity loss; conservation; environmental management; ecosystem degradation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Progress is being made in assessing the conservation status of ecosystems, but there are concerns regarding the scientific understanding of ecosystem collapse. Strengthening the scientific basis of collapse risk assessments through defining concepts and reviewing theoretical foundations is essential. Additional research is needed to improve current understanding and potential implications for conservation policy and practice.
Progress is being made in assessing the conservation status of ecosystems, notably through initiatives such as the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) and the NatureServe Conservation Status Assessment (NCS). Both of these approaches consider conservation status in terms of the risk of ecosystem collapse. However, the scientific understanding of ecosystem collapse is still at a relatively early stage. Consequently, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific basis of ecosystem conservation assessments focusing on collapse risk. Here I explore how these concerns might potentially be addressed by considering how the concept is defined, and by briefly reviewing the theoretical basis of ecosystem collapse. I then examine the implications of recent research results for the design of ecosystem collapse risk assessments, and the challenges identified in those assessments conducted to date. Recommendations are made regarding how collapse risk assessments might be strengthened based on current scientific understanding, and how this understanding could be improved by further research. In addition, I examine the potential implications for conservation policy and practice if the scientific basis of collapse risk assessments is not strengthened in this way.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据