[Taxacom] Who uses biodiversity data and why?

[Shorthouse, David]

Bob,

Without ready access to the kinds of data that might prove useful to local
management decisions, how could there be case studies of the kind you
describe? The divide between data and decisions I hope would evaporate once
pools of data and useful tools are readily available (e.g. real-time niche
modeling). Once the data are used in this manner...we're by no means there
yet until we solve all the nomenclatural, data exchange, etc. problems...I
would anticipate an avalanche of demand. But, occurrence data of course will
never usurp the knowledge-base of local biodiversity "managers"; the former
is merely one tool in their toolbox. Perhaps what organizations like GBIF
require is a reporting system for users of occurrence data as
self-validating compendia - the kind of reports politicians love to see.

David P. Shorthouse
------------------------------------------------------
Department of Biological Sciences
CW-403, Biological Sciences Centre
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB   T6G 2E9
Phone: 1-780-492-3080
mailto:dps1 at ualberta.ca
http://canadianarachnology.webhop.net
http://arachnidforum.webhop.net
------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Mesibov [mailto:mesibov at southcom.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:42 PM
To: TAXACOM; Shorthouse, David
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Who uses biodiversity data and why?

David,

I'm familiar with Chapman's excellent GBIF report. It doesn't answer my 
question. What it gives is a vast number of examples of how species locality

data are used for a whole range of purposes. The uses are overwhelmingly 
local and regional, and only a minority relate to what might be Tom Ball's 
"much better policy and resource-management choices locally, regionally and 
globally".

I appreciate that there is an unstated question in what I'm asking, which I 
might now state as "Why doesn't having more and better information 
inevitably lead to more and better decisions?". Cynics on this list can now 
chorus, "Politics!".

However, politics is not what I'm questioning here. I agree with you that 
there should be no distinction between how we acquire, store, analyse and 
report species locality data at local and global scales. That's just spatial

data management.

Where I might be disagreeing with you is in how species locality data are 
used for conservation, land use and resource management planning. Here there

are substantial differences between approaches at local, regional and global

scales. More to the point, the overwhelming majority of planning decisions 
are made at local scales using local data, and they are made (with any luck)

with the help of biodiversity specialists familiar with the local situation.

I don't need convincing that having ready access to species locality data 
makes the job of those specialists and local-scale decision-makers easier. I

need convincing that

(a) primary species locality data is used to make "much better policy and 
resource-management choices" globally, and

(b) universal access to all biodiversity data will assist decision-making at

the local level, where the overwhelming majority of biodiversity-related 
issues are considered.

Strong evidence for (a) and (b) would help justify the push for universal 
access to all biodiversity data. I haven't seen that evidence.
---
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate, Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery
and School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195

Tasmanian Multipedes
http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/zoology/multipedes/mulintro.html
Spatial data basics for Tasmania
http://www.utas.edu.au/spatial/locations/index.html
---