Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security

Abstract

Global biodiversity conservation is seriously challenged by gaps and heterogeneity in the geographical coverage of existing information. Nevertheless, the key barriers to the collection and compilation of biodiversity information at a global scale have yet to be identified. We show that wealth, language, geographical location and security each play an important role in explaining spatial variations in data availability in four different types of biodiversity databases. The number of records per square kilometre is high in countries with high per capita gross domestic product (GDP), high proportion of English speakers and high security levels, and those located close to the country hosting the database; but these are not necessarily countries with high biodiversity. These factors are considered to affect data availability by impeding either the activities of scientific research or active international communications. Our results demonstrate that efforts to solve environmental problems at a global scale will gain significantly by focusing scientific education, communication, research and collaboration in low-GDP countries with fewer English speakers and located far from Western countries that host the global databases; countries that have experienced conflict may also benefit. Findings of this study may be broadly applicable to other fields that require the compilation of scientific knowledge at a global level.

Prioritizing species, pathways, and sites to achieve conservation targets for biological invasion

“…Grey shading represents those countries that refer to some external list of IAS for the country in addition to species mentioned in the Fourth National Reports targets. With the aim of making quality data management for prioritization accessible to all countries, the most cost-effective way is to support existing international databases and information systems (Amano and Sutherland 2013;Costello and Wieczorek 2014;Costello et al 2013. The starting point would be a world list of invasive species with a standardized nomenclature.…”

A critical review of the Mediterranean sea turtle rescue network: a web looking for a weaver

“…It is further compounded by security issues in many countries (Amano and Sutherland 2013). Along with language barriers, these factors are also a hindrance to the originally envisioned concept of a functioning network.…”

“…It is also polluted, for example with oil and plastic, which are particularly pertinent with regard to sea turtles (Gramentz 1988). Its multitude of coastal nations with different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds-not to mention linguistic barriers-stymies the concerted protection and conservation of its sea turtle populations (Amano and Sutherland 2013). The loggerhead Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758) is the most common species in the Mediterranean (Broderick et al 2002, Margaritoulis et al 2003.…”

The need for an integrated biodiversity policy support process – Building the European contribution to a global Biodiversity Observation Network (EU BON)

“…While a large quantity of biodiversity data have already been gathered, access to it remains difficult as it is often distributed in fragmented and heterogeneous datasets. Data are scattered across countries and continents with many differences due to countries' specific traditions and societal frameworks (Amano and Sutherland 2013;Vandzinskaite et al 2010). Furthermore, there is often a heavy bias towards easily recognisable and high profile taxa.…”