Your data. Your outcomes - biodiversity information handling and data quality

There have been quite a few training sessions in the Eurobodalla getting people to use iNaturalist. At first I thought this was the same group as I was transferred as an "expert" to INaturalist (for some marine invertebrates) after starting with Atlas of Life in the Coastal Wilderness and continuing this task with NatureMapr. Why is there duplication?
Jenny Edwards
Nature Coast Marine Group

Hi @Jennyncmg,

That's great - anything and everything that inspires and motivates people to look after the environment is an extremely positive thing.

Platform choice is a good thing - just like you can use a Windows PC or an Apple Mac. Ultimately the end user benefits from that choice.

Both platforms take their own approach to supporting citizen science (= win win for the environment).

It is very important for NatureMapr to be fully transparent with our users regarding what happens with their data, where it is hosted, how it is safeguarded and what happens to it downstream and we encourage all of our users to read up on that and to make their own informed choice: https://naturemapr.org/content/naturemapr-biodiversity-information-handling

We are Australian made, Australian owned and focused entirely on establishing direct relationships and data exchange with multiple Australian government databases at multiple levels to ensure the data gets through to where it can influence real world decision making.

All sighting records on NatureMapr are curated and formally identified by an expert who:
- Is formally qualified; OR
- Has relevant professional experience; OR
- Has a demonstrated track record in identifying species within their category(ies) of expertise;
AND
- Is entrusted by at least one other moderator and/or administrator

G'day Aaron.

Getting more clarity around data handling on CNM is really important for users and I'm very pleased to see this being addressed thoughtfully and aligned with ala principles.

I've been recently been surprised to find the locations of some plant species in the "Very rare/Threatened" conservation level being able to be seen by all users.
It now seems you have a new category to define which species locations are seen and which are not called "Highly sensitive sighting", but I can't find anywhere on the CNM site what the definition of that category is and how it relates to the conservation levels.
Could you please point me to where I can find that information.
Thanks,
Warren
(aka sangio7)

Hi @sangio7 Warren,

Thanks for the feedback on this. The safeguarding (suppression of precise location) of records is driven by the Sensitivity Level as opposed to the Conservation Level.

"Very rare/threatened" is a conservation level value, which is independent to the record's Sensitivity Level.

Sensitivity Level of a species can only have 3 possible values. Not Sensitive, Sensitive or Highly Sensitive.

These values are maintained by the expert moderator community and do change from time to time based on their latest understanding of a particular species.

That said, if at any time you feel a particular species should be treated as Highly Sensitive but is not, we definitely encourage you to reach out to a relevant moderator and/or submit a contact us form to raise and discuss the matter further. The whole taxonomy is a living breathing thing and is continually being maintained and improved as per: https://naturemapr.org/species/updates

Thanks for that clarification Aaron. But I'm still surprised that the location of a threatened plant species would not be considered sensitive and hidden.
Are you able to share the considerations that go into making the decision to classify as "Highly sensitive"?

Hi @sangio7,

NatureMapr enlists appropriately qualified or experienced expert moderators who we trust to maintain appropriate levels for species in consultation with formal advice from government.

That does not eliminate all possibility of a particular species attracting a new sensitivity level over time nor does it eliminate all possibility of human error and/or the community missing something. However, if that legitimately does occur, the mechanisms are in place to bring any examples to the attention of moderators for their consideration.

If you can provide me with any specific examples, we will definitely pass to the appropriate moderators to consider. There is a section on our Contact Us form specifically for taxonomy related changes and/or enquiries and this is exactly what it is used for.

Cheers

Aaron.

Nothing specific at present Aaron - just trying to get my head around how the system works.
Obviously a user recording a sighting can check the location display status of that species and decide for themselves whether to proceed. And I assume that locations that users asked to be suppressed are respected and override any sensitivity classification?

Thanks,
Warren

Hi @sangio7 yep that's exactly correct.

A contributor can choose to manually suppress the location of any sighting due to private property or privacy reasons, which overrides and takes precedence. The effect is that the sighting is treated exactly the same as if it was a Highly Sensitive species.

NatureMapr is holding our first free online webinar tomorrow and we are very happy to take any questions..

Please check our social media for details.

@sangio7 If i might also add to the conversation on sensitivity. Each state and territory also has their own assessment of species sensitivity and often have published policies on the matter. Here is NSW's version https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/wildlife-management/wildlife-policies-and-guidelines/sensitive-species-data. Reasons for sensitivity are often based on two things risk and consequence. Classic examples are high value species risk of poaching and collection, and Risk of high visitation causing damage or disturbance. Whether something is sensitive or highly sensitive *should be based on the devastation and consequence of an adverse event happening. So threatened species would only be sensitive where that was deemed to be an unacceptable risk, weighed up against the consequence of not showing where the species is (e.g. how can we protect a species if we don’t know it was there). Where the states and territories have sensitivity flags, NatureMapr does their best to reflect that in our sensitivity rankings. But isn't infallible, especially for new species that are added to our taxonomy (and I hope all moderators are aware of this). Social media groups often circumvent any protection we add anyway - which is ok, the point is that visitation is reduced or harder, rather than outright banned. Recently the states and territories got together to work with ALA to form the RASDs Restricted Access Species Data framework (aka sensitive species) www.rasd.org.au to help guide all users and data managers in sensitive species data for which NatureMapr has pledged too.

Love your work @jksmits