This dataset includes bibliographic information for 501 papers that were published from 2010-April 2017 (time of search) and use online biodiversity databases for research purposes. Our overarching goal in this study is to determine how research uses of biodiversity data developed during a time of unprecedented growth of online data resources. We also determine uses with the highest number of citations, how online occurrence data are linked to other data types, and if/how data quality is addressed. Specifically, we address the following questions:

1.) What primary biodiversity databases have been cited in published research, and which

databases have been cited most often?

2.) Is the biodiversity research community citing databases appropriately, and are

the cited databases currently accessible online?

3.) What are the most common uses, general taxa addressed, and data linkages, and how

have they changed over time?

4.) What uses have the highest impact, as measured through the mean number of citations

per year?

5.) Are certain uses applied more often for plants/invertebrates/vertebrates?

6.) Are links to specific data types associated more often with particular uses?

7.) How often are major data quality issues addressed?

8.) What data quality issues tend to be addressed for the top uses?

Relevant papers for this analysis include those that use online and openly accessible primary occurrence records, or those that add data to an online database. Google Scholar (GS) provides full-text indexing, which was important to identify data sources that often appear buried in the methods section of a paper. Our search was therefore restricted to GS. All authors discussed and agreed upon representative search terms, which were relatively broad to capture a variety of databases hosting primary occurrence records. The terms included: “species occurrence” database (8,800 results), “natural history collection” database (634 results), herbarium database (16,500 results), “biodiversity database” (3,350 results), “primary biodiversity data” database (483 results), “museum collection” database (4,480 results), “digital accessible information” database (10 results), and “digital accessible knowledge” database (52 results)--note that quotations are used as part of the search terms where specific phrases are needed in whole. We downloaded all records returned by each search (or the first 500 if there were more) into a Zotero reference management database. About one third of the 2500 papers in the final dataset were relevant. Three of the authors with specialized knowledge of the field characterized relevant papers using a standardized tagging protocol based on a series of key topics of interest. We developed a list of potential tags and descriptions for each topic, including: database(s) used, database accessibility, scale of study, region of study, taxa addressed, research use of data, other data types linked to species occurrence data, data quality issues addressed, authors, institutions, and funding sources. Each tagged paper was thoroughly checked by a second tagger.

The final dataset of tagged papers allow us to quantify general areas of research made possible by the expansion of online species occurrence databases, and trends over time. Analyses of this data will be published in a separate quantitative review.

This comprehensive database describes the core attributes of quantification tools developed for market-based conservation in the United States. It encompasses tools designed for compensatory mitigation, non-compensatory mitigation, and voluntary conservation/restoration programs. The dataset consists of 107 tools. Each tool's features are described using 33 attributes related to general, technical, and ecological/geographic details. This database was first published in 2018. Version 2.0 expands upon the original database by including tools developed for compensatory mitigation under the Clean Water Act section 404 regulatory program. Version 2.0 also provides updates on tool details provided in the original database. To access the formatted version of the database that includes supporting information, download Quantification Tools Database--with formatting and supporting materials (ver. 2.0, June 2022).xlsx below. For help understanding the various database files, download the "Guide to Understanding Files Associated with Database of Quantification Tools.doc" below.

Our world is in the midst of unprecedented change—climate shifts and sustained, widespread habitat degradation have led to dramatic declines in biodiversity rivaling historical extinction events. At the same time, new approaches to publishing and integrating previously disconnected data resources promise to help provide the evidence needed for more efficient and effective conservation and management. Stakeholders have invested considerable resources to contribute to online databases of species occurrences. However, estimates suggest that only 10% of biocollections are available in digital form. The biocollections community must therefore continue to promote digitization efforts, which in part requires demonstrating compelling applications of the data. Our overarching goal is therefore to determine trends in use of mobilized species occurrence data since 2010, as online systems have grown and now provide over one billion records. To do this, we characterized 501 papers that use openly accessible biodiversity databases. Our standardized tagging protocol was based on key topics of interest, including: database(s) used, taxa addressed, general uses of data, other data types linked to species occurrence data, and data quality issues addressed. We found that the most common uses of online biodiversity databases have been to estimate species distribution and richness, to outline data compilation and publication, and to assist in developing species checklists or describing new species. Only 69% of papers in our dataset addressed one or more aspects of data quality, which is low considering common errors and biases known to exist in opportunistic datasets. Globally, we find that biodiversity databases are still in the initial stages of data compilation. Novel and integrative applications are restricted to certain taxonomic groups and regions with higher numbers of quality records. Continued data digitization, publication, enhancement, and quality control efforts are necessary to make biodiversity science more efficient and relevant in our fast-changing environment.

This dataset is an aggregation of historic occurrence records collected by many contributors. It is maintained by the Samoan Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE). It was originally assembled in 1994, by Dr Antony Robinson, who is an Australian researcher who was working for the Volunteer Services Abroad with MNRE for a year. The development and compilation was completed with funds from the CBD Biodiversity Clearing House

** Thank you to GBIF and the BID programme for their support in mobilizing this dataset ** Publication of this dataset was funded by the European Union

The World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas is managed by BirdLife International on behalf of the KBA Partnership. It hosts data on global and regional Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), including Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas identified by the BirdLife International Partnership, Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, KBAs identified through hotspot ecosystem profiles supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, and a small number of other KBAs. The database was developed from the World Bird and Biodiversity Database (WBDB) managed by BirdLife International.

The UN Biodiversity Lab is an online platform that allows policymakers and other partners to access global data layers, upload and manipulate their own datasets, and query multiple datasets to provide key information on the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and nature-based Sustainable Development Goals.

The core mission of the UN Biodiversity Lab is three-fold: to build spatial literacy to enable better decisions, to use spatial data as a vehicle for improved transparency and accountability, and to apply insights from spatial data across sectors to deliver on the Convention on Biological Diversity and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The Mediterranean Ocean Biodiversity Information System (MedOBIS) is a distributed system that allows you to search multiple datasets simultaneously for biogeographic information on marine organisms. AccConID=21 AccConstrDescription=This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials. AccConstrDisplay=This dataset is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. AccConstrEN=Attribution (CC BY) AccessConstraint=Attribution (CC BY) AccessConstraints=None Acronym=MedOBIS added_date=2004-12-17 13:02:51 BrackishFlag=0 CDate=2004-12-07 cdm_data_type=Other CheckedFlag=1 Citation=Hellenic Centre For Marine Research, MedOBIS - Mediterranean Ocean Biodiversity Information System. Hellenic Centre for Marine Research; Institute of Marine Biology and Genetics; Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Department, Heraklion, Greece. Http://www.medobis.org/ Comments=None ContactEmail=arvanitidis@her.hcmr.gr Conventions=COARDS, CF-1.6, ACDD-1.3 CurrencyDate=None DasID=481 DasOrigin=Data collection DasType=Data DasTypeID=1 DateLastModified={'date': '2025-04-25 01:33:51.812809', 'timezone_type': 1, 'timezone': '+02:00'} DescrCompFlag=0 DescrTransFlag=0 Easternmost_Easting=35.38 EmbargoDate=None EngAbstract=The Mediterranean Ocean Biodiversity Information System (MedOBIS) is a distributed system that allows you to search multiple datasets simultaneously for biogeographic information on marine organisms. EngDescr=An attempt to collect, format, analyse and disseminate surveyed marine biological data deriving from the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea region is currently under development at the Hellenic Center for Marine Research (HCMR, Greece). The effort has been supported by the MedOBIS project (Mediterranean Ocean Biodiversity Information System) and has been carried out in cooperation with the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki (Greece), the National Institute of Oceanography (Israel) and the Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas (Ukraine). The aim is to develop a taxon-based biogeography database and online data server with a link to survey and provide satellite environmental data. In its completion, the MedOBIS online marine biological data system (http://www.medobis.org/) will be a single source of biological and environmental data (raw and analysed) as well as an online GIS tool for access of historical and current data by marine researchers. It will function as the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea node of EurOBIS (the European node of the International OBIS initiative, part of the Census of Marine Life).

The spatial component of data has led to the integration of datasets by means of the Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. The latter is widely used as the natural framework for spatial data handling. GIS serves as the basic technological infrastructure for several online marine biodiversity databases available on the Internet today. Developments like OBIS (Ocean Biodiversity Information System, http://www.iobis.org/), OBIS-SEAMAP (Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations, http://seamap.env.duke.edu) and FIGIS (FAO Fisheries Global Information System, http://www.fao.org/fi/figis) facilitate the study of anthropogenic impacts on threatened species, enhance our ability to test biogeographic and biodiversity models, support modeling efforts to predict distribution changes in response to environmental change and develop a strong potential for the public outreach component. In addition, such online database systems provide a broader view of marine biodiversity problems and allow the development of management practices that are based on synthetic analysis of interdisciplinary data.

Towards this end, a new online marine biological information system is developed. MedOBIS (Mediterranean Ocean Biodiversity Information System) intends to assemble, formulate and disseminate marine biological data for the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea regions focusing on the assurance and longevity of historical surveyed data, the assembly of current and new information and the dissemination of raw and integrated biological and environmental data and future products through the Internet.

To provide a taxon-based search capability to the MedOBIS development, the sampling data as well as the relevant spatial data are stored in the database, so taxonomic data can be linked with the geographical data by queries. To reference each species to its location on the map, the database queries are stored and added to the applet as individual layers. A search function written in JavaScript searches the attribute data of that layer, displays the results in a separate window and marks the matching stations on the map. Finally, selecting several stations by drawing a zooming rectangle on the map provides a list with predefined themes from which the user may select more information.

As more data will be assembled in time-series databases, an additional future work will include the development of MedOBIS data analysis phase, which is planned to include GIS modeling/mapping of species-environment interactions. FreshFlag=0 GBIF_UUID=83bede10-f762-11e1-a439-00145eb45e9a geospatial_lat_max=45.7 geospatial_lat_min=31.89 geospatial_lat_units=degrees_north geospatial_lon_max=35.38 geospatial_lon_min=12.3 geospatial_lon_units=degrees_east infoUrl=None InputNotes=S:\datac\original datasets\Marbef\Europe\EurOBIS\MedOBIS[481]\medobis_masterbase.mdb institution=HCMR License=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Lineage=Prior to publication data undergo quality control checked which are described in https://github.com/EMODnet/EMODnetBiocheck?tab=readme-ov-file#understanding-the-output MarineFlag=1 modified_sync=2021-02-04 00:00:00 Northernmost_Northing=45.7 OrigAbstract=None OrigDescr=None OrigDescrLang=None OrigDescrLangNL=None OrigLangCode=None OrigLangCodeExtended=None OrigLangID=None OrigTitle=None OrigTitleLang=None OrigTitleLangCode=None OrigTitleLangID=None OrigTitleLangNL=None Progress=In Progress PublicFlag=1 ReleaseDate=Dec 17 2004 12:00AM ReleaseDate0=2004-12-17 RevisionDate=None SizeReference=2953 species; 776 stations sourceUrl=(local files) Southernmost_Northing=31.89 standard_name_vocabulary=CF Standard Name Table v70 StandardTitle=Mediterranean Ocean Biodiversity Information System StatusID=1 subsetVariables=ScientificName,aphia_id TerrestrialFlag=0 UDate=2025-03-26 VersionDate=Dec 7 2004 12:00AM VersionDay=7 VersionMonth=12 VersionName=1 VersionYear=2004 VlizCoreFlag=1 Westernmost_Easting=12.3

The Biodiversity of the Gulf of Mexico Database (BioGoMx) was based on a comprehensive biotic inventory of the Gulf of Mexico sponsored by the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies (HRI), Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, which resulted in the book: Felder, D. L. and D. K. Camp (eds). 2009. Gulf of Mexico: Origins, Waters, and Biota. Volume 1: Biodiversity. Texas A&M Press, College Station, Texas. 1393 pp.

The biotic inventory was conducted by 140 taxonomic experts from 80 institutions in 15 countries, who were charged with documenting all living biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico (GMx), as of 2004. The resulting inventory listed 15,419 species in 40 phyla and divisions, arranged in 77 chapters, each encompassing a phylum, class or other taxonomic group. Each chapter has an introduction to the taxon, a short review of the state of the knowledge on the taxon in general, and in particular in the GMx, a checklist of the living species, and a list of references used to document the species in the GMx, its biology, or taxonomic questions.

For purposes of this project, biodiversity of the Gulf of Mexico was defined as that documented to occur in marine habitats, coastal waters and tidal wetlands west of Cabo Catoche, Quintana Roo, Mexico (21 degrees 33 minutes N, 87 degrees 00 minutes W), that in waters north of a line from Cabo Catoche, Mexico, to Cabo de San Antonio, Cuba (21 degrees 51 minutes N, 84 degrees 57 minutes W), that from coastal waters and tidal wetlands between Cabo de San Antonio and Punta Hicacos, Cuba (23 degrees 12 minutes N, 81 degrees 08 minutes W), and that from waters and tidal wetlands of the Florida Straits and Florida Keys on or west of a line from Punta Hicacos, Cuba, to the vicinity of Key Largo, Florida (25 degrees 06 minutes N, 80 degrees 26 minutes W). This delineation thus included all marine waters and tidal wetlands extending to the eastern extreme of Florida Bay. It excluded Cay Sal Bank as well as the extensive system of islands and estuaries east of Punta Hicacos, Cuba.

The editors of the book attempted to maintain a standard format across the taxonomic groups. The nature of a few taxa, however, required a deviation from the norm, for example the birds lack information on depth range, and parasitic species had the host(s) listed. Because of limited space (on paper), the tabular checklist only allowed a limited space for information. The checklist consisted of six columns listing the updated taxonomy, including all higher taxonomic levels; a few of the more pertinent abbreviations on the habitat and biology; the depth range; the overall geographic range; the distribution within the Gulf of Mexico; and finally some of the pertinent references and endnotes explaining taxonomic issues or details on the record of that species.

The species included in each checklist were based on the literature, museum and institutional collections, and observations by professional observers (e.g. in the case of marine mammals). Because of time and space constraints, a listing of the compilation of all records of all species was not possible. Instead, distribution of each species within the GMx was ultimately reported as expert knowledge of the occurrence of the species in four quadrants or eight sectors of the GMx.

The BioGoMx database was developed by converting the information in the Felder and Camp book into a database. The original chapter authors were invited to perform the conversion, but only a few (four) authors had the time and/or technical expertise to do so. All of the crustacean chapters (16) were converted by a team of researchers (Gema Armendariz and Fernando Alvarez) at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), in Mexico City. The remaining 57 chapters were converted by Fabio Moretzsohn, at HRI, in Corpus Christi, Texas. Proofing of the database against the book is currently being performed, and any corrections will be incorporated in Version 2 of the database.

It should be pointed out that the distribution reported in the database DO NOT correspond to individual specimens or observations, but rather represents the probable distribution of the species in the GMx as judged by the expert. In an attempt to refine the resolution of distribution, the GMx distribution was divided in eight sectors and six depth classes. Jorge Brenner, at HRI, developed a set of 48 polygons (8 sectors x 6 depth classes) in a GIS, based on the bathymetry of the GMx, and an arbitrary point, approximately the centroid of each polygon, was assigned to represent each polygon. Potential caveats of this approach include an overestimation of the species true distribution when the GMx distribution was reported (in the book) as occurring in all four quadrants, and in all depth classes spanned by the depth range.

The data available in OBIS-USA includes only the distribution within the GMx and the taxonomy. Some taxa did not have distributional or depth data available, and thus were not available at OBIS.

The complete database, with data on the habitat, biology, depth range, overall distribution, references and endnotes, as well as taxonomy and GMx distribution, is available at GulfBase (HYPERLINK "http://www.gulfbase.org" www.gulfbase.org). Patrick Michaud, at GulfBase, developed the web services, queries and web interface of the database at GulfBase. Philip Goldstein and Melissa Reed-Eckert, at OBIS-USA, and Edward Vanden Berghe, at IOBIS, assisted in the development of the database for OBIS. More detailed information on the database and its development are also available at GulfBase.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) - Science Analytics and Synthesis (SAS) - Gap Analysis Project (GAP) manages the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), an Arc10x geodatabase, that includes a full inventory of areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity and to other natural, recreation, historic, and cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means (www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/protected-areas). The PAD-US is developed in partnership with many organizations, including coordination groups at the [U.S.] Federal level, lead organizations for each State, and a number of national and other non-governmental organizations whose work is closely related to the PAD-US. Learn more about the USGS PAD-US partners program here: www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-data-stewards. The United Nations Environmental Program - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) tracks global progress toward biodiversity protection targets enacted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) through the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM) available at: www.protectedplanet.net. See the Aichi Target 11 dashboard (www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/global-partnership-on-aichi-target-11) for official protection statistics recognized globally and developed for the CBD, or here for more information and statistics on the United States of America's protected areas: www.protectedplanet.net/country/USA. It is important to note statistics published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Center (www.marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/dataanalysis/mpainventory/) and the USGS-GAP (www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-statistics-and-reports) differ from statistics published by the UNEP-WCMC as methods to remove overlapping designations differ slightly and U.S. Territories are reported separately by the UNEP-WCMC (e.g. The largest MPA, "Pacific Remote Islands Marine Monument" is attributed to the United States Minor Outlying Islands statistics). At the time of PAD-US 2.1 publication (USGS-GAP, 2020), NOAA reported 26% of U.S. marine waters (including the Great Lakes) as protected in an MPA that meets the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) definition of biodiversity protection (www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about). USGS-GAP plans to publish PAD-US 2.1 Statistics and Reports in the spring of 2021. The relationship between the USGS, the NOAA, and the UNEP-WCMC is as follows: - USGS manages and publishes the full inventory of U.S. marine and terrestrial protected areas data in the PAD-US representing many values, developed in collaboration with a partnership network in the U.S. and; - USGS is the primary source of U.S. marine and terrestrial protected areas data for the WDPA, developed from a subset of the PAD-US in collaboration with the NOAA, other agencies and non-governmental organizations in the U.S., and the UNEP-WCMC and; - UNEP-WCMC is the authoritative source of global protected area statistics from the WDPA and WD-OECM and; - NOAA is the authoritative source of MPA data in the PAD-US and MPA statistics in the U.S. and; - USGS is the authoritative source of PAD-US statistics (including areas primarily managed for biodiversity, multiple uses including natural resource extraction, and public access). The PAD-US 2.1 Combined Marine, Fee, Designation, Easement feature class (GAP Status Code 1 and 2 only) is the source of protected areas data in this WDPA update. Tribal areas and military lands represented in the PAD-US Proclamation feature class as GAP Status Code 4 (no known mandate for biodiversity protection) are not included as spatial data to represent internal protected areas are not available at this time. The USGS submitted more than 42,900 protected areas from PAD-US 2.1, including all 50 U.S. States and 6 U.S. Territories, to the UNEP-WCMC for inclusion in the May 2021 WDPA, available at www.protectedplanet.net. The NOAA is the sole source of MPAs in PAD-US and the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, www.conservationeasement.us/) is the source of conservation easements. The USGS aggregates authoritative federal lands data directly from managing agencies for PAD-US (www.communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-govunits/federal-lands-workgroup/), while a network of State data-stewards provide state, local government lands, and some land trust preserves. National nongovernmental organizations contribute spatial data directly (www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/pad-us-data-stewards). The USGS translates the biodiversity focused subset of PAD-US into the WDPA schema (UNEP-WCMC, 2019) for efficient aggregation by the UNEP-WCMC. The USGS maintains WDPA Site Identifiers (WDPAID, WDPA_PID), a persistent identifier for each protected area, provided by UNEP-WCMC. Agency partners are encouraged to track WDPA Site Identifier values in source datasets to improve the efficiency and accuracy of PAD-US and WDPA updates. The IUCN protected areas in the U.S. are managed by thousands of agencies and organizations across the country and include over 42,900 designated sites such as National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, some State Parks, State Wildlife Management Areas, Local Nature Preserves, City Natural Areas, The Nature Conservancy and other Land Trust Preserves, and Conservation Easements. The boundaries of these protected places (some overlap) are represented as polygons in the PAD-US, along with informative descriptions such as Unit Name, Manager Name, and Designation Type. As the WDPA is a global dataset, their data standards (UNEP-WCMC 2019) require simplification to reduce the number of records included, focusing on the protected area site name and management authority as described in the Supplemental Information section in this metadata record. Given the numerous organizations involved, sites may be added or removed from the WDPA between PAD-US updates. These differences may reflect actual change in protected area status; however, they also reflect the dynamic nature of spatial data or Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Many agencies and non-governmental organizations are working to improve the accuracy of protected area boundaries, the consistency of attributes, and inventory completeness between PAD-US updates. In addition, USGS continually seeks partners to review and refine the assignment of conservation measures in the PAD-US.

The National Biodiversity Data Centre of Ireland has developed an online mapping system, Biodiversity Maps, which provides access to data on the distribution of Ireland’s biological diversity. More information on this dataset can be found in the Freshwater Metadatabase - BFE_68 (http://www.freshwatermetadata.eu/metadb/bf_mdb_view.php?entryID=BFE_68).

Germany DE: Official Development Assistance: % of Total ODA: Biodiversity data was reported at 12.040 % in 2021. This records an increase from the previous number of 11.220 % for 2020. Germany DE: Official Development Assistance: % of Total ODA: Biodiversity data is updated yearly, averaging 9.220 % from Dec 1998 (Median) to 2021, with 24 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 15.770 % in 1998 and a record low of 3.840 % in 2008. Germany DE: Official Development Assistance: % of Total ODA: Biodiversity data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Germany – Table DE.OECD.GGI: Environmental: Environmental Policy, Taxes and Transfers: OECD Member: Annual.

The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) is the most comprehensive global database of marine and terrestrial protected areas, updated on a monthly basis, and is one of the key global biodiversity data sets being widely used by scientists, businesses, governments, International secretariats and others to inform planning, policy decisions and management. The WDPA is a joint project between UN Environment and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The compilation and management of the WDPA is carried out by UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), in collaboration with governments, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. There are monthly updates of the data which are made available online through the Protected Planet website where the data is both viewable and downloadable. Data and information on the world's protected areas compiled in the WDPA are used for reporting to the Convention on Biological Diversity on progress towards reaching the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (particularly Target 11), to the UN to track progress towards the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, to some of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) core indicators, and other international assessments and reports including the Global Biodiversity Outlook, as well as for the publication of the United Nations List of Protected Areas. Every two years, UNEP-WCMC releases the Protected Planet Report on the status of the world's protected areas and recommendations on how to meet international goals and targets. Many platforms are incorporating the WDPA to provide integrated information to diverse users, including businesses and governments, in a range of sectors including mining, oil and gas, and finance. For example, the WDPA is included in the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool, an innovative decision support tool that gives users easy access to up-to-date information that allows them to identify biodiversity risks and opportunities within a project boundary. The reach of the WDPA is further enhanced in services developed by other parties, such as the Global Forest Watch and the Digital Observatory for Protected Areas, which provide decision makers with access to monitoring and alert systems that allow whole landscapes to be managed better. Together, these applications of the WDPA demonstrate the growing value and significance of the Protected Planet initiative.

The biodiversity database is planned to be a reference on Antarctic and subantarctic flora and fauna collated by the Regional Sensitivity to Climate Change (RiSCC) group and developed by the Australian Antarctic Data Centre.

Searches are available in the following areas:

Taxonomy Protection and convention measures (protected species) Observations Scientific Bibliographies

Major geothermal prospects occur in fragile ecosystems constituting a rich tapestry of all forms of life and the ecosystems that they are part. Ensuring intra and intergenerational equity in geothermal development is critical for conservation of biological diversity. Relative to the variety of habitats, biotic communities and ecological processes in the biosphere, biodiversity is an important pre-requisite for all forms of life to exist as it provides valuable ecosystem services. Nevertheless, there exist several threats to biodiversity and biodiversity conservation including loss of habitat, overexploitation, pollution, and climate change. To mitigate this, several environmental concerns including binding, non binding and local agreements involved in achieving biodiversity conservation are reviewed in this paper with case examples from the Olkaria geothermal power project, situated within the Hells Gate National Park in Kenya.

California Nature Conserved Areas Explorer The Conserved Areas Explorer is a web application enabling users to investigate a synthesis of the best available data representing lands and coastal waters of California that are durably protected and managed to support functional ecosystems, both intact and restored, and the species that rely on them. Understanding the spatial distribution and extent of these durably protected and managed areas is a vital aspect of tracking and achieving the “30x30” goal of conserving 30% of California's lands and waters by 2030.Terrestrial and Freshwater Data• The California Protected Areas Database (CPAD), developed and managed by GreenInfo Network, is the most comprehensive collection of data on open space in California. CPAD data consists of Holdings, a single parcel or group of parcels, such that the spatial features of CPAD correspond to ownership boundaries. • The California Conservation Easement Database (CCED), also managed by GreenInfo Network, aggregates data on lands with easements. Conservation Easements are legally recorded interests in land in which a landholder sells or relinquishes certain development rights to their land in perpetuity. Easements are often used to ensure that lands remain as open space, either as working farm or ranch lands, or areas for biodiversity protection. Easement restrictions typically remain with the land through changes in ownership. • The Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), hosted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), is developed in coordination with multiple federal, state, and non-governmental organization (NGO) partners. PAD-US, through the Gap Analysis Project (GAP), uses a numerical coding system in which GAP codes 1 and 2 correspond to management strategies with explicit emphasis on protection and enhancement of biodiversity. PAD-US is not specifically aligned to parcel boundaries and as such, boundaries represented within it may not align with other data sources. • Numerous datasets representing designated boundaries for entities such as National Parks , and Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, and others, were downloaded from publicly available sources, typically hosted by the managing agency.Methodology1. CPAD and CCED represent the most accurate location and ownership information for parcels in California which contribute to the preservation of open space and cultural and biological resources.2. Superunits are collections of parcels (Holdings) within CPAD which share a name, manager, and access policy. Most Superunits are also managed with a generally consistent strategy for biodiversity conservation. Examples of Superunits include Yosemite National Park, Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. 3. Some Superunits, such as those owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, or National Park Service , are intersected by one or more designations, each of which may have a distinct management emphasis with regards to biodiversity. Examples of such designations are Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or National Monuments.4. CPAD Superunits were intersected with all designation boundary files to create the operative spatial units for conservation analysis, henceforth 'Conservation Units,' which make up the Conserved Areas Map Layer. Each easement was functionally considered to be a Superunit. 5. Each Conservation Unit was intersected with the PAD-US dataset in order to determine the management emphasis with respect to biodiversity, i.e., the GAP code. Because PAD-US is national in scope and not specifically parcel aligned with California assessors' surveys, a direct spatial extraction of GAP codes from PAD-US would leave tens of thousands of GAP code data slivers within the Conserved Areas Map. Consequently, a generalizing approach was adopted, such that any Conservation Unit with greater than 80% areal overlap with a single GAP code was uniformly assigned that code. Additionally, the total area of GAP codes 1 and 2 were summed for the remaining uncoded Conservation Units. If this sum was greater than 80% of the unit area, the Conservation Unit was coded as GAP 2. 6. Subsequent to this stage of analysis, certain Conservation Units remained uncoded, either due to the lack of a single GAP code (or combined GAP codes 1&2) overlapping 80% of the area, or because the area was not sufficiently represented in the PAD-US dataset. 7. These uncoded Conservation Units were then broken down into their constituent, finer resolution Holdings, which were then analyzed according to the above workflow. 8. Areas remaining uncoded following the two-step process of coding at the Superunit and Holding levels were assigned a GAP code of 4. This is consistent with the definition of GAP Code 4: areas unknown to have a biodiversity management focus. 9. Greater than 90% of all areas in the Conserved Areas Explorer were GAP coded at the level of Superunits intersected by designation boundaries, the coarsest unit of analysis. By adopting this coarser analytical unit, the Conserved Areas Explorer maintains a greater level of user responsiveness, avoiding the need to maintain and display hundreds of thousands of additional parcel records, which in most cases would only reflect the management scenario and GAP status of the umbrella Superunit and other spatially coincident designations.Marine Data • The Conserved Areas Explorer displays the network of 124 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) along coastal waters and the shoreline of California. There are several categories of MPAs, some permitting varying levels of commercial and recreational fishing and waterfowl hunting, while roughly half of all MPAs do not permit any harvest. These data include all of California's marine protected areas (MPAs) as defined January 1, 2019. This dataset reflects the Department of Fish and Wildlife's best representation of marine protected areas based upon current California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 632: Natural Resources, Division 1: FGC- DFG. This dataset is not intended for navigational use or defining legal boundaries.Tracking Conserved AreasThe total acreage of conserved areas will increase as California works towards its 30x30 goal. Some changes will be due to shifts in legal protection designations or management status of specific lands and waters. However, shifts may also result from new data representing improvements in our understanding of existing biodiversity conservation efforts. The California Nature Conserved Areas Explorer is expected to generate a great deal of excitement regarding the state's trajectory towards achieving the 30x30 goal. We also expect it to spark discussion about how to shape that trajectory, and how to strategize and optimize outcomes. We encourage landowners, managers, and stakeholders to zoom into the locations they understand best and share their expertise with us to improve the data representing the status of conservation efforts at these sites. The Conserved Areas Explorer presents a tremendous opportunity to strengthen our existing data infrastructure and the channels of communication between land stewards and data curators, encouraging the transfer of knowledge and improving the quality of data. CPAD, CCED, and PAD-US are built from the ground up. These terrestrial data sources are derived from available parcel information and submissions from those who own and manage the land. So better data starts with you. Do boundary lines require updating? Is the GAP code inconsistent with a Holding’s conservation status? If land under your care can be better represented in the Conserved Areas Explorer, please use this link to initiate a review. The results of these reviews will inform updates to the California Protected Areas Database, California Conservation Easement Database, and PAD-US as appropriate for incorporation into future updates to CA Nature and tracking progress to 30x30.

This collection comprises account-ready data for biodiversity in the Murray-Darling Basin, developed in the ‘Ecosystem Accounts for the Murray-Darling Basin’ project, one of two Regional Ecosystem Accounting Pilot (REAP) projects delivering ecosystem accounts at sub-national scales. The account-ready data in this collection are used to compile biodiversity accounts for the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB). The data provided are spatial layers of predicted status of different biodiversity features across the Murray-Darling Basin over time, prepared for use in ecosystem accounts. The biodiversity features for which account-ready data are provided are: nationally listed threatened species; waterbirds; vascular plants; reptiles; all birds; and several focal species (river red gum, lignum, royal spoonbill, straw-necked ibis). For all biodiversity features, annual patterns of expected (or potential) status were derived by combining remotely sensed data with information on expected patterns in biodiversity, incorporating field observation data. The status of all biodiversity features has been estimated annually, for each year from 2001 (or earlier) to 2018, using a common spatial grid of 100 m resolution covering the Murray-Darling Basin. These data align with other account-ready data prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin under the Regional Ecosystem Accounting Pilot projects, including for ecosystem extent, ecosystem condition and ecosystem services. Lineage: See attached document - Methods for developing account-ready data: biodiversity in the Murray-Darling Basin.

In summary, data were prepared with the objective of directly informing ecosystem accounting for the Murray-Darling Basin. Different methods were applied in developing the account-ready data for different biodiversity features, however, all data were developed using a habitat-based approach to biodiversity assessment. This habitat-based approach combines spatially complete remotely sensed data on aspects relevant to the habitat quality for different biodiversity features, with spatially complete information on expected spatial patterns for those biodiversity features. The spatial layers produced provide an indication of the expected provision of habitat for each biodiversity feature across the region of interest for each year.

The data files provided are separated by the key biodiversity features, with the data and file naming convention described in full in the attached method document.

This database was developed in the context of the Deliverable 2.1 of the BioAgora project 'Developing the Science Service for European Research and Biodiversity Policymaking' (https://bioagora.eu/). BioAgora is a collaborative European project funded by the Horizon Europe programme (Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, grant agreement No. 101059438). The project's main outcome is intended to be the development of a Science Service for Biodiversity, the principal EU mechanism to connect research and knowledge on biodiversity to the needs of policy making through a continuous dialogue. The ultimate goal of BioAgora and of the Science Service is to support the implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and more broadly the sustainability transition required by the EU Green Deal. The BioAgora project was launched in July 2022 for a duration of 5 years. It gathers a Consortium of 22 partners, from 13 European countries, led the Finnish Environment Institute (Syke). Partners represent a diversity of actors coming from academia, public authorities, SMEs, and associations. Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

In order to develop the database, a thorough desk search was conducted to compile an extensive, albeit not exhaustive, list of organizations operating at the science-policy-society interface in the context of biodiversity and sustainability. In collecting the list, we focused on actors operating at EU level, although we also included particularly relevant international, regional or national organized actors. The desk search built upon the work already developed in the context of two pan-European projects, funded by the Seventh framework programme of the European Community: ‘Developing a Knowledge Network for European Expertise on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform policy making and economic sectors (KNEU, 2010-2014, grant 265299) and ‘Establishing a European Knowledge and Learning Mechanism to Improve the Policy-Science-Society Interface on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ (Eklipse, 2016-2020, grant 690474). The two above-mentioned projects preceded the BioAgora project in that they aimed at understanding and improving the effectiveness of the biodiversity science-policy(-society) interface in Europe. Such projects had thus already compiled extensive databases of relevant organizations in Europe (including national and international actors, in addition to EU level actors), and quantified the relevance of such organizations based on votes cast by project members and based on interviews with key organizations. The database developed through the desk search conducted was further refined with suggestions for relevant organizations provided by BioAgora’s participants and by the representatives of the organizations interviewed during the other steps of the data collection. The data collection processes started in September 2022 and was updated until June 2024. Note that the categories for network types (Columns E-F) are not mutually exclusive. For further details about the development of the database please see Deliverable 2.1 (https://bioagora.eu/deliverables/).

The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) was established by governments in 2001 to encourage free and open access to biodiversity data, via the Internet. Through a global network of countries and organizations, GBIF promotes and facilitates the mobilization, access, discovery and use of information about the occurrence of organisms over time and across the planet. GBIF provides three core services and products: # An information infrastructure an Internet-based index of a globally distributed network of interoperable databases that contain primary biodiversity data information on museum specimens, field observations of plants and animals in nature, and results from experiments so that data holders across the world can access and share them # Community-developed tools, standards and protocols the tools data providers need to format and share their data # Capacity-building the training, access to international experts and mentoring programs that national and regional institutions need to become part of a decentralized network of biodiversity information facilities. GBIF and its many partners work to mobilize the data, and to improve search mechanisms, data and metadata standards, web services, and the other components of an Internet-based information infrastructure for biodiversity. GBIF makes available data that are shared by hundreds of data publishers from around the world. These data are shared according to the GBIF Data Use Agreement, which includes the provision that users of any data accessed through or retrieved via the GBIF Portal will always give credit to the original data publishers. * Explore Species: Find data for a species or other group of organisms. Information on species and other groups of plants, animals, fungi and micro-organisms, including species occurrence records, as well as classifications and scientific and common names. * Explore Countries: Find data on the species recorded in a particular country, territory or island. Information on the species recorded in each country, including records shared by publishers from throughout the GBIF network. * Explore Datasets: Find data from a data publisher, dataset or data network. Information on the data publishers, datasets and data networks that share data through GBIF, including summary information on 10028 datasets from 419 data publishers.

COMARGIS is the Information System of COMARGE (COntinental MARgin Ecosystems on a worldwide scale), a field project of the Census of Marine Life. The core of the system is a relational database implemented in ORACLE. Additional software help the users uploading, retrieving or updating data in the database. The whole system is derived from Biocean, a database developed and maintained by the Deep-Sea Department and the French Oceanographic Data Centre at Ifremer, Brest.

As threats to biodiversity mount, the international community is increasingly focusing on conserving diversity. This comprehensive dataset presents the most current and accurate global development data available and includes national, regional and global estimates.