Open availability of data has considerably increased scientists’ ability to monitor threatened species. However, at the same time, the availability of data has created new risks as the data can be misused, for example, by poachers and harvesters to pursue their aims. Such risks are created by the very availability of data that enables e.g., poachers to locate and harm the animals or harvest threatened plants. The problem though is not only the poachers. For example, Cooge et al. mention a case where tracing data were misused in a shark-culling program in western Australia: “Researchers tagged imperilled white sharks to study their spatial ecology and inform conservation planning. The tagged sharks were also used as warning systems at beaches. The agency that granted the research permits had access to the tagging data as part of the permitting requirements. However, these data were then used to locate and kill tagged animals to allegedly reduce human-wildlife conflict.” (Cooge et al., 2017) Moreover, some species can be negatively affected just by disturbance (Quinn, 2021).

Some other risks may be created by the involvement of untrained citizen scientists in monitoring because wrongly conducted observation of threatened species itself might present certain risks to them. For example, Soroye et al. point out that human disturbance or poaching are listed as major threats for 57.9% of threatened species on iNaturalist compared with 38% of all Red List threatened species are at risk of these threats. This suggests “that the threatened species reported to iNaturalist disproportionately tend to be threatened by disturbance and harvesting.” (Soroye et al., 2022) There are many benefits from involving citizen scientists in research and in many cases the help provided by them is indispensable. However, it is mandatory to provide citizen scientists with the necessary training in, for example, responsible monitoring of threatened species.

To minimise these risks, as emphasised by Cooke et al.: “It is important for researchers and funding bodies to accept and acknowledge responsibility for the consequences of public access to electronic-tagging data.” (Cooke et al. 2017) Scientists need to address the question of when it is safe to share the data and when it is not, to find the right balance between openness on the one hand and avoiding harm to threatened species on the other. One such example is provided by Tulloch et al. (2018) who have developed a method to help scientists and officials decide when to publish sensitive biodiversity data. 

Before proceeding to the next task, please read: Open data offer risks and rewards for conservation. (2018). Nature, 559(7715), 444–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05800-y

References

1. Cooke, S. J. et al. (2017).Troubling issues at the frontier of animal tracking for conservation and management. Conservation Biology, 31(5), 1205–1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12895
2. Quinn, A. (2021). Transparency and secrecy in citizen science: Lessons from herping. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 85, 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.10.010
3. Soroye, P. et al. (2022). The risks and rewards of community science for threatened species monitoring. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(9), e12788. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12788
4. Tulloch, A. I. T. et al. (2018). A decision tree for assessing the risks and benefits of publishing biodiversity data. Nature Ecology Evolution, 2(8), Article 8.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0608-1