A decision tree for assessing the risks and benefits of publishing biodiversity data

Abstract

Inadequate information on the geographical distribution of biodiversity hampers decision-making for conservation. Major efforts are underway to fill knowledge gaps, but there are increasing concerns that publishing the locations of species is dangerous, particularly for species at risk of exploitation. While we recognize that well-informed control of location data for highly sensitive taxa is necessary to avoid risks, such as poaching or habitat disturbance by recreational visitors, we argue that ignoring the benefits of sharing biodiversity data could unnecessarily obstruct conservation efforts for species and locations with low risks of exploitation. We provide a decision tree protocol for scientists that systematically considers both the risks of exploitation and potential benefits of increased conservation activities. Our protocol helps scientists assess the impacts of publishing biodiversity data and aims to enhance conservation opportunities, promote community engagement and reduce duplication of survey efforts.

Integrating local ecological knowledge, citizen science and long‐term historical data for endangered species conservation: Additional records of angel sharks (Chondrichthyes: Squatinidae) in the Mediterranean Sea

“…It is important to further explore at a larger spatial scale (e.g. the whole Mediterranean with the participation of more projects, organizations and scientists) our understanding about angel sharks and other threatened species’ distributions in the basin (Tulloch et al, ), by designing cooperative communication campaigns asking for information about such species. These efforts work towards improving data availability and increasing public awareness, thus advancing conservation.…”

Aligning citizen science with best practice: Threatened species conservation in Australia

“…The risk posed by participants potentially disturbing vulnerable species or causing degradation to habitats (Steven, Pickering, & Castley, ), must be assessed during project design, and managed during training of participants and implementation. Likewise, revealing sites where threatened species have been observed may pose another source of risk (Lindenmayer & Scheele, ; Tulloch et al, ). For the most part, however, the risks of demonstrated negative impacts on threatened species due to a lack of ecological understanding exceed those related to the possible negative effects posed by volunteers (Tulloch et al, ).…”

“…Likewise, revealing sites where threatened species have been observed may pose another source of risk (Lindenmayer & Scheele, ; Tulloch et al, ). For the most part, however, the risks of demonstrated negative impacts on threatened species due to a lack of ecological understanding exceed those related to the possible negative effects posed by volunteers (Tulloch et al, ). One can reasonably speculate that a significant proportion of people that choose to volunteer their time for a citizen science project aimed at improving the prognosis for a threatened species have the interests of that species forefront of mind.…”

Fairness and Transparency Are Required for the Inclusion of Privately Protected Areas in Publicly Accessible Conservation Databases

“…One prominent example within conservation is whether to publish the location of threatened species. Some researchers argue that location data should be kept confidential given the risks of poaching [31], while others promote open-access to enable effective conservation planning and management [32,33]. In the case of PPAs, the value of comprehensive protected area databases for conservation planning and management may come with risks to the landholders who make available their property information.…”