Redlisting the redlist: a global analysis of species distributions and biodiversity
Global conservation and research has come to rely on the IUCN species range-maps to direct research, allocate funding and define and design protected areas. However, IUCN species range-maps may be created on the basis of little actual data. Though the IUCN methods may be suitable for well known species, they may be liable unreliable for lesser known species or areas. In such cases, human biases may limit the usefulness of the output maps and potentially misdirect conservation funding and protection. Possible errors in these IUCN maps has global implications for the preservation of biodiversity, as flawed data leads to flawed decisions, which are of critical importance to the protection of the biodiversity of this planet. Ultimately we show that the current IUCN \"expert-assessment based\" range-maps may hinder rather than assist global conservation, as errors ranged from tens to thousands of kilometres (between recorded distributions and IUCN-maps), and for some taxa under 50% of records fell within their mapped-ranges. IUCN maps are being used globally to evaluate global conservation and protection, yet up to 85.4% of IUCN species-range boundaries follow political-boundaries, making using IUCN maps to evaluate the protected-area system and its efficacy impossible. The current availability of data, methods and computer-power has relegated these maps in the wake of more empirically based methods, and better use of available data provides the ability to make better conservation decisions, especially for highly threatened species and regions.