Deciphering social equity from biodiversity data: an interdisciplinary policy perspective

The collection of biodiversity data is growing exponentially. This increase is driven in part by international commitments to conservation, market investments and technological advances, as well as the growing urgency of human impacts, including climate change. Nations are increasingly relying on biodiversity data to strategically achieve global conservation goals for decades to come. But not all data is collected in the same way.

Millie Chapman, a postdoctoral researcher at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) based at UC Santa Barbara, studies the social and political context of biodiversity data collection. In a recent Science publication, Chapman and his colleagues demonstrate that biodiversity data are increasingly concentrated in rich countries. They argue that this context should be uncovered to avoid inequitable implementation of conservation projects.

Biodiversity data gives us “unprecedented insight into ecological patterns on a global scale,” says Chapman, which can greatly inform nations’ priorities for future conservation. But applying these data sets to decision-making often reveals more about us humans as a species than any other species.

“Biodiversity data traces not only cities and roads, but also the rise of surveillance technologies, the shadows of colonial history, and the echoes of contemporary racial and economic disparities,” she says. “We can see everything from the red line to armed conflicts to macroeconomic models.”

These human dimensions impact not only the actual diversity of non-human species, but also how this diversity is observed and quantified. For example, the extent of European colonialism is further evidenced by the distribution of European plant and animal species around the world. The areas most impacted by extractive industries are sometimes the most studied. In these cases, data collection depends on continued resource extraction. The map and graph show how biodiversity data is disproportionately collected in high-income countries and how this inequitable trend has grown exponentially over time.

Chapman began this work as a graduate student in environmental science and policy at UC Berkeley. She launched a reading group with peers in sociology and political ecology to delve deeper into questions of data justice and algorithmic fairness. His current interdisciplinary research stems from this fortuitous reading group. Now she and her co-authors, who include experts in computer science and ecology, are asking: “Is the best available data really an appropriate standard?”

Better curation isn’t just about collecting more data or improving statistical methods, says Chapman. It is also about a better understanding of the social, cultural and political context behind environmental data.

“I don’t think any single area has the answer to this problem,” she says. “And that’s a good reason to be at NCEAS.” For nearly 30 years, NCEAS has been a leading center for synthetic science, where groups of interdisciplinary experts leverage existing data to answer complex questions.

Scientists have long understood these contextual data inequalities, according to Chapman. But with growing global attention and application of biodiversity data for on-the-ground conservation, including a multi-billion dollar market for biodiversity offsets, these inequalities can be amplified and preserved by policies.

“The path forward will require more than technocratic solutions,” she and her colleagues say. The research team hopes to see more interdisciplinary and inclusive science policy collaboration to ensure that biodiversity data, with all its inherent limitations and inequalities, is applied as fairly as possible.