Social and political disparities in biodiversity data may significantly impact global conservation efforts and investments in biodiversity-related initiatives worth billions of dollars, researchers said in a recent paper published in the journal Science.

The paper, authored by a team of researchers led by Melissa Chapman from the University of California, argued that these biases present in global biodiversity data could undermine global conservation efforts.

Data, which have gained substantial influence in shaping conservation policies and major investments, are not immune to the socio-political legacies that have shaped human societies, the researchers said.

Additionally, while these biases were previously overlooked when biodiversity data primarily informed academic research and theoretical conservation priorities, they have become a critical concern given their substantial impact on contemporary biodiversity policies, the paper says.

“Without directly addressing and correcting for social and political disparities in data, the conservation community will likely fall into the same traps that other domains do – entrenching the inequities of the past and present in future decision-making through data,” it said.

Impacts could extend to the fairness and success of international biodiversity offset markets and investments, potentially leading to unequal outcomes, according to the study.

Initiatives such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), a repository of global species observations, with the aim of providing comprehensive biodiversity data to support various initiatives, including invasive species control and conservation investment decisions are not immune to biases. According to the study, a closer inspection of the GBIF showed that these data are not the impartial scientific resource many believe it to be.

“Even at first glance, GBIF data do not reflect latitudinal gradients of biodiversity, but more closely trace macroeconomic patterns,” the paper noted.

As well, the study warned that as biodiversity data and models continue to get increasingly better, that might not solve all problems.

“Although new monitoring technologies continue collecting information about global biodiversity and its degradation at finer resolutions and with a broader scope,” technological advancements in biodiversity data collection, such as participatory science programmes and AI-supported sensors, have not necessarily corrected these biodiversity data biases, it said.

A deeper understanding of the complex social infrastructure that influences data collection and decision-making processes is required as the world moves toward trying to meet the goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework, the study said.

By Mulumba Agaba – mulumba@carbon-pulse.com