Bridging the biodiversity data gaps: Recommendations to meet users’ data needs

Abstract

-Freely available high quality, data on species occurrence and associated variables are needed in order to track changes in biodiversity. One of the main issues surrounding the provision of such data is that sources vary in quality, scope, and accuracy. Publishers of such data must face the challenge of maximizing quality, utility and breadth of data coverage, in order to make such data useful to users. With the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), we recently conducted a content needs assessment survey to consolidate and synthesize major user needs regarding biodiversity data. We find a broad range of recommendations from the survey respondents, principally concerning issues such as data quality, bias, and coverage, and ease of access. We recommend a candidate set of actions for the GBIF that fall into three classes: 1) addressing data gaps, data volume, and data quality, 2) aggregating data types that are relatively new to GBIF, to support emerging new applications, and 3) promoting ease-of-use and providing incentives for wider use. Addressing the challenge of providing high quality primary biodiversity data potentially can serve the needs of national and international biodiversity initiatives. These include the "flexible framework" for addressing the new 2020 biodiversity targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the global biodiversity observation network (GEO BON) and the new Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Each of these presents opportunities for countries to define appropriate actions and corresponding data needs, with links from local to global scales.

Content assessment of the primary biodiversity data published through GBIF network: Status, challenges and potentials

“…Recognising this, the GBIF-constituted Content Needs Assessment Task Group (CNATG) recommended that assessment of GBIF-mobilised content at various levels (global, regional, national and thematic) is crucial for determining the demanddriven approach for data mobilisation (Faith et. al., 2013(Faith et. al., , 2013.…”

“…While doing so, informatics approaches are proven to be effective; however, questions about future improvements can be raised. Linkages with more authoritative taxonomic catalogues (Recommendation 4 in Faith et al, 2013) and involvement of taxonomic expertise will soon be required to resolve taxonomic discrepancies.…”

“…species within genus Zonotrichia). GBIF should also improve its reporting services to the original publishers so that potential taxonomic mis-identifications are reported (Recommendation 6 in Faith et al, 2013). GBIF should also monitor over time the taxonomic data quality improvements made in the GBIF Index (e.g.…”

“…The data publisher community is therefore addressing this challenge in particular for recent records. While GBIF's role is to enable the discovery of primary biodiversity data from a network of publishers (Recommendation 14, Faith et al, 2013), it is not mandated to undertake or correct the content published. However, this can be questioned in particular when a simple correction, such as a sign correction on a longitude or latitude field, could be undertaken within the GBIF Index and therefore immediately improve the quality of data published.…”

“…Experts could investigate datasets falling well under these baselines and reports with recommendations on possible corrections should be sent to the original publishers. However, this approach would require engagement from expert groups as well as willingness and availability of data owners to undertake more accurate verifications such as getting back to the original voucher specimen (Recommendation 3, Faith et al, 2013).…”