<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

CONTRIBUTED PAPERS

# Using social media records to inform conservation planning

Shawan Chowdhury<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" /> ID

Richard A. Fuller<fnref n="4" /> ID

Sultan Ahmed<fnref n="5" /> ID

Shofiul Alam<fnref n="5" /> ID

Corey T. Callaghan<fnref n="6" />

Priyanka Das<fnref n="5" />

Ricardo A. Correia<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="8" />,<fnref n="9" /> ID

Moreno Di Marco<fnref n="10" /> ID

Enrico Di Minin<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="8" />,<fnref n="11" /> ID

Ivan Jarić<fnref n="12" />,<fnref n="13" /> ID

Mahzabin Muzahid Labi<fnref n="5" /> ID

Richard J. Ladle<fnref n="14" />,<fnref n="15" /> ID

Md. Rokonuzzaman<fnref n="5" />

Uri Roll<fnref n="16" /> ID

Valerio Sbragaglia<fnref n="17" /> ID

Asma Siddika<fnref n="5" />

Aletta Bonn<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" /> ID

**Correspondence**

Shawan Chowdhury, Institute of Biodiversity,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Dornburger
Straße 159, 07743 Jena, Germany. Email:
dr.shawanchowdhury@gmail.com

**Article impact statement:** Integrating biodiversity data sets from social media sources could substantially improve understanding of the natural world.

**Funding information**

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Grant/Award
Number: DFG-FZT118,202548816

**Abstract**

Citizen science plays a crucial role in helping monitor biodiversity and inform conservation. With the widespread use of smartphones, many people share biodiversity information on social media, but this information is still not widely used in conservation. Focusing on Bangladesh, a tropical megadiverse and mega-populated country, we examined the importance of social media records in conservation decision-making. We collated species distribution records for birds and butterflies from Facebook and Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), grouped them into GBIF-only and combined GBIF and Facebook data, and investigated the differences in identifying critical conservation areas. Adding Facebook data to GBIF data improved the accuracy of systematic conservation planning assessments by identifying additional important conservation areas in the northwest, southeast, and central parts of Bangladesh, extending priority conservation areas by 4,000–10,000 km<fnref n="2" />. Community efforts are needed to drive the implementation

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

© 2023 The Authors. *Conservation Biology* published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

<footnote n="1">¹Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Department of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Department of Zoology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Davie, Florida, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Biodiversity Unit, University of Turku, Turku, Finland</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Orsay, France</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴CIBIO/InBIO, Centro de Investigação Em Biodiversidade E Recursos Genéticos, Universidade Do Porto, Vairão, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Midreshet Ben-Gurion, Israel</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷Department of Marine Renewable Resources, Institute of Marine Sciences (ICM-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

of the ambitious Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework targets, especially in megadiverse tropical countries with a lack of reliable and up-to-date species distribution data. We highlight that conservation planning can be enhanced by including available data gathered from social media platforms.

## KEYWORDS

Bangladesh, citizen science, conservation planning, crowdsourcing, iEcology, megadiverse countries, protected area, social media, tropics, Wallacean shortfall

Registros de las redes sociales para guiar la planeación de la conservación

**Resumen:** La ciencia ciudadana es importante para monitorear la biodiversidad e informar la conservación. Con el creciente uso de los teléfonos inteligentes, muchas personas comparten información de la biodiversidad en redes sociales, pero todavía no se usa amplamente en la conservación. Analizamos la importancia de los registros de las redes sociales para las decisiones de conservación enfocados en Bangladesh, un país tropical megadiverso y mega poblado. Cotejamos los registros de distribución de especies de aves y mariposas en Facebook y Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), las agrupamos en datos sólo de GBIF o datos combinados de Facebook y GBIF e investigamos las diferencias en la identificación de las áreas de conservación críticas. La combinación de los datos de Facebook con los de GBIF mejoró la precisión de las evaluaciones de la planeación de la conservación sistemática al identificar otras áreas importantes de conservación en el noroeste, sureste y centro de Bangladesh, extendiendo así las áreas prioritarias de conservación en unos 4,000-10,000 km². Se requieren esfuerzos comunitarios para impulsar la implementación de los objetivos ambiciosos del Marco Global de Biodiversidad Kunming-Montreal, especialmente en países tropicales que carecen de datos confiables y actuales sobre la distribución de las especies. Destacamos que la planeación de la conservación puede mejorarse si se incluye información tomada de las redes sociales.

## PALABRAS CLAVE

área protegida, Bangladesh, ciencia ciudadana, crowdsourcing, déficit wallaceano, iEcology, países megadiversos, planeación de la conservación, redes sociales, trópicos

## 利用社交媒体记录为保护规划提供信息

**【摘要】** 公民科学在帮助监测生物多样性和提供保护信息方面发挥着至关重要的作用。随着智能手机的广泛使用,许多人会在社交媒体上分享生物多样性信息,但这些信息仍未被广泛用于保护。本研究聚焦于孟加拉国这个生物多样性丰富、人口众多的热带国家,探究了社交媒体记录在保护决策中的重要性。我们整理了来自Facebook和全球生物多样性信息网络(GBIF)的鸟类和蝴蝶物种分布记录,将其分为纯GBIF数据和GBIF-Facebook整合数据,并分析了其在确定重点保护区域方面的差异。我们发现,在GBIF数据的基础上增加Facebook数据,可以在孟加拉国西北部、东南部和中部地区确定额外的重要保护区域,将优先保护区扩大了4000-10000平方公里,提高了系统性保护规划评估的准确性。推动实施雄心勃勃的昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架目标需要社会各界的努力,尤其是在生物多样性高但缺乏最新物种分布可靠数据的热带国家。最后,本研究强调了将来自社交媒体平台的可用数据纳入保护规划,可以提升保护规划的效果。【翻译:胡怡思;审校:聂永刚】

**关键词:** 孟加拉国, 公民科学, 保护规划, 众包, iEcology, 保护地, 社交媒体, 热带, 高生物多样性国家, 华莱士知识空缺

## INTRODUCTION

Earth's biodiversity is unevenly distributed (Pimm et al., 2014). Despite occupying <2% of Earth's surface, the tropics contain about 50% of global biodiversity, much of which resides in humid forests (Collen et al., 2008). Most tropical countries

have high human population densities, substantial socioeconomic disadvantages, and high dependence on forests (Lewis et al., 2015; Newton et al., 2020). In many tropical countries, forests are overexploited or rapidly being converted to agricultural and urban land (Bradshaw et al., 2009; Chowdhury, Alam, Chowdhury, et al., 2021; Chowdhury, Alam, Labi, et al., 2021;
Symes et al., 2018). These multifaceted human pressures pose an ongoing existential risk to tropical biodiversity (Malhi et al., 2014).

Protected areas (PAs) are the main tool to safeguard biodi- versity from human pressures (Mukul & Rashid, 2017; Watson et al., 2014). They play crucial roles in protecting species and populations from extinction (Chowdhury, Jennions, et al., 2022; Maxwell et al., 2020), and their management can include sustainable land use. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiver- sity Framework (CBD, 2022) includes an ambitious target of expanding the coverage of PAs and other effective area-based conservation measures to 30% of terrestrial and marine areas by 2030, emphasizing area-based conservation approaches as a key means to maintain species and ecosystem functions. The effectiveness of this approach largely depends on maximizing biodiversity protection in PAs, requiring detailed records of the distribution of species. Although such data are often available for Europe and North America, tropical taxa are typically less well sampled (Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2023; Di Marco et al., 2017; Troudet et al., 2017).

Citizen science is playing a vital role in reducing global biodiversity knowledge gaps (Callaghan et al., 2021, 2022; Chan- dler et al., 2017; Di Minin et al., 2015; Pocock et al., 2019), and, even in Europe, around 80–90% of biodiversity observa- tional records are collected by dedicated volunteers (Schmeller et al., 2009). Amateur (and professional) naturalists are increas- ingly taking advantage of expanded internet coverage and the photographic capacity of mobile devices to share their obser- vations online (Andrachuk et al., 2019; Chowdhury, Ahmed, et al., 2023; Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2023; Marcenò et al., 2021; O’Neill et al., 2023). Consequently, the amount of biodiversity data from citizen science in the Global Biodiversity Informa- tion Facility (GBIF) is sharply increasing, although its data are biased toward Europe and North America (Hughes et al., 2021). Due to the increasing popularity of social media (e.g., Facebook, Flickr), millions of people post photographs that contain biodiversity information (Chowdhury, Ahmed, et al., 2023; Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2023; Toivonen et al., 2019). If these biodiversity observation records can also be captured and mobilized, this could enhance existing knowledge of tropical species distributions and vastly improve conservation assess- ments (Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2023; Jarić et al., 2020; Toivonen et al., 2019). Conservation science has so far utilized social media data in limited instances, such as mapping ecosystem services; promoting conservation through marketing and educa- tion; monitoring species and ecosystems, and management; and facilitating conservation communication (Di Minin et al., 2015). We focused on a tropical, mega-populated country, Bangladesh, to test whether social media data can directly contribute to conservation decision-making.

Bangladesh is part of the Indo-Burma and Indo-Malayan biodiversity hotspots (Chowdhury, Alam, Labi, et al., 2021; Chowdhury, Fuller et al., 2023) and is home to many globally charismatic species, including Royal Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), spoon-billed sandpiper (Calidris pygmaea), and the Ganges River dolphin (Platanista gangetica). About 25% of assessed species in Bangladesh are threatened with extinction (IUCN Bangladesh, 2015), and ongoing climate change is significantly

affecting the distribution of many species (Chowdhury, 2023). Biodiversity data from Bangladesh are scarce in GBIF (0.0001% of total GBIF records), like many other tropical countries. However, there is an active community of amateur photogra- phers whose images, posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, often contain biodiversity information (Chowd- hury, 2023; Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2023; Sbragaglia et al., 2021, 2023). A recent study captured 7,096 records of butter- flies from Bangladesh posted on Facebook (compared with 205 observations on GBIF [Chowdhury, Alam, Chowdhury, et al., 2021]).

We considered whether biodiversity distribution records from social media can improve conservation assessments. To test this, we used Bangladesh as a case study and examined whether social media records can inform conservation planning and decision-making. We aimed to demonstrate how social media data can complement and expand existing biodiversity data and, consequently, contribute to real-world conservation planning.

METHODS

Data

We compiled a comprehensive checklist of birds and butter- flies of Bangladesh from the most recent national red list data book (871 species total, 566 bird species, 305 butterfly species) (IUCN Bangladesh, 2015). We collected climatic data from the WordClim database (http://www.worldclim.com/version2) at the finest resolution (0.693 km²; 833 × 833 m). We downloaded the distribution of the current PAs in Bangladesh (UNEP- WCMC, 2021) with the wdpar R package (Hanson, 2022), and the land-cover data came from Copernicus Global Land Ser- vice (Buchhorn et al., 2020). The land-cover layer contained 7 major classes: shrublands, herbaceous vegetation, herbaceous wetlands, permanent water bodies, built areas, forests, and croplands.

For the species data, we used 2 approaches. First, we down- loaded spatial distribution records for the birds and butterflies of Bangladesh from GBIF with the rgbif package (Chamber- lain et al., 2022) in R 4.0.4 (R Core Team, 2021). The GBIF is the largest global biodiversity data infrastructure network, and it compiles occurrence records from various sources— from museum specimens to citizen science records (Heberling et al., 2021). To avoid repetition, we did not collect data from other biodiversity repositories that provide data to GBIF (e.g., iNaturalist).

Second, we collected species distribution records from Facebook from our previous work (Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2022), following the method described by Chowd- hury, Ahmed, et al. (2023). These records were obtained by searching for species distribution records in 2 Face- book groups: Birds Bangladesh (https://www.facebook.com/ groups/2403154788) and Butterfly Bangladesh (https://www. facebook.com/groups/488719627817749). In each group, we explored data by species common name obtained from IUCN Bangladesh (2015), double-checked the identification in each
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

photograph, and extracted the species details (taxonomic information, location, date, and photographer). Afterwards, for each observation, we georeferenced the location with Google Maps (https://maps.google.com/). We excluded pictures if the identification was either incomplete (not up to the species level) or erroneously identified in Facebook (and we could not identify the image correctly), if the photograph did not allow clear taxonomic identification, or if the location was unspecified or could not be accurately determined. Some photographers may have shared the same photographs in Facebook and citizen science applications that were then eventually deposited in GBIF; this could have caused duplication. To address this problem, before running the conservation prioritization, we cleaned and spatially thinned the data (see “Data cleaning”).

Although other social media channels can be reliable sources of biodiversity data (Toivonen et al., 2019), we considered only Facebook because Facebook is among the most popular social media channels for photographers of Bangladesh, and the locality information is typically much vaguer in other social media channels (e.g., Twitter, Instagram). When sharing biodiversity photographs in the two Facebook groups we used, photographers are required to follow the group rule that the location information must be specified so that group members can evaluate the records (Chowdhury, Ahmed, et al., 2023; Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2023; Chowdhury, Alam, Labi, et al., 2021).

## Data cleaning

We cleaned GBIF data with the CoordinateCleaner R package (Zizka et al., 2019). We removed duplicate records, records with precision uncertainty over 10 km, imprecise coordinates (zero coordinates, integers, records in oceans), and invalid coordinates (specified locality was incompatible with the coordinates given).

To address sampling bias, we spatially thinned the combined data with the spThin R package (Aiello-Lammens et al., 2015) and considered a single occurrence record at 0.693 km² (833 × 833 m) resolution for each species. We followed the same process for both species occurrence data (GBIF-only) and combined data (Facebook and GBIF [hereafter combined data]).

We checked collinearity among the WorldClim variables and removed highly correlated ($r > 0.75$) variables (Appendix S1). In this way, we removed 11 of the 19 climatic variables and kept the following 8 variables for the analyses: annual mean temperature, isothermality, mean temperature of the driest quarter, mean temperature of the coldest quarter, precipitation of the driest month, precipitation seasonality, precipitation of the driest quarter, and precipitation of the warmest quarter. Details on WorldClim variables are available from https://www.worldclim.org/data/bioclim.html.

## Cleaning PA

We used the wdpar R package (Hanson, 2022) to clean the PA data following a globally accepted method (Butchart et al., 2015). Namely, we reprojected the data into an equal-area coordinate system (World Behrmann; ESRI: 54017), excluded

UNESCO biosphere reserves and sites with unknown or proposed status, created buffers around PAs denoted as point localities, and expanded them to their reported extent. We rasterized the protected boundaries at 0.693 km² (833 × 833 m) resolution with the fasterize R package (Ross, 2020). The cleaned PA data set resulted in boundaries for 42 PAs.

## Habitat suitability maps

We fitted MaxEnt species distribution models to generate habitat suitability maps with the ENMEval package in R (Muscarella et al., 2014). We ran the model separately for GBIF-only and combined data sets.

We fitted species distribution models for each species with 9 predictor variables (8 climatic and 1 land cover), 10-fold cross-validation, and 5,000 randomly generated background records at 0.693 km² resolution. Because Bangladesh is a small country, we used 5,000 instead of the typical 10,000 background records. We generated folds by overlaying the presence and background records with a spatial grid to control sampling bias and spatial autocorrelation on model performance. We assigned the records to grid cells and then randomly assigned grid cells to particular folds (Muscarella et al., 2014). To further improve model performance, we performed a calibration procedure by fitting the model under different combinations of parameters. Specifically, we fitted the model under 6 feature class combinations (L, LQ, H, LQH, LQHP, and LQHPT, where L is linear, Q is quadratic, H is hinge, P is product, and T is threshold) and 8 different regularization multipliers (0.5–4 at 0.5 intervals). Although the feature class allows Maxent to develop composite models to ensure good fit to the data, regularization multiplier values control model overfitting (Muscarella et al., 2014).

We evaluated the models with the AUC (area under a receiver operating characteristic –ROC–z curve) and chose the best model with the highest AUC score. After identifying the best model for each species, we used them to generate maps of continuous habitat suitability across the study area. We then applied thresholds to convert the continuous values into binary values, resulting in maps that denoted the presence or absence of suitable habitat conditions. The threshold values were specified by maximizing the sum of the sensitivity and specificity statistics (Liu et al., 2016). Because the best models all had an AUC >0.7 (mean = 0.92), we were confident that they were suitable to address the aims of our study. We also checked the suitability distribution of the predicted maps, and the prediction was good, with low omission and commission errors.

We used the binary habitat suitability maps for subsequent analysis. We had 470 (GBIF data) and 698 (combined data) species in our final analyses. We extracted built areas from the land-cover map and removed suitable habitats in these areas for each species for both Facebook and the combined data sets.

## PA coverage

To evaluate the extent to which existing PAs in Bangladesh overlapped with biodiversity, we overlaid the species' binary habitat suitability maps with the PA data and measured the percentage
of suitable habitats occurring in existing PAs. Afterwards, we compared the percent level of coverage with a target threshold (termed *representation target*). We set the targets following a modified version of standard practices for global analysis (Butchart et al., 2015). We set the target at 100% for species with a distribution of <1000 km² and 10% for those with 148,460 km² (country area). For the intermittent values, we log linearly interpolated the targets with the prioritizr R package (Hanson et al., 2022).

## Spatial conservation prioritization

We identified priority areas that most efficiently fill shortfalls in the existing PA system based on GBIF-only data and combined data. For this, we generated a single prioritization based on the minimum set formulation of the reserve selection problem, where the grid cells were used as planning units (Schuster et al., 2020). We generated these prioritizations with the species' binary habitat suitability maps and the representation targets we used in the previous step to assess the performance of existing PAs. As such, the prioritization was constrained to meet the representation targets for every species assessed. To account for opportunity costs associated with implementing conservation areas, we considered the human footprint index (Venter et al., 2018) as a proxy for cost data (Butchart et al., 2015). Additionally, to ensure that priority areas complement existing PAs, existing PAs were locked in. These analyses were completed with an optimality gap of 10% with the prioritizr R package (Hanson et al., 2022) and Gurobi (version 8.1.0; Gurobi Optimization, LLC, 2021). We used Gurobi because this is the fastest way to generate prioritization (see Schuster et al. [2020] for details). After generating the prioritization, we overlaid it with land-cover data to facilitate interpretation.

To identify the most important priority areas in the analysis, we ran an irreplaceability analysis for each planning unit selected in a solution with the prioritizr R package (Hanson et al., 2022). While running the irreplaceability analysis, to quantify the importance of planning units, we used the Ferrier score (Ferrier et al., 2000).

To test other scenarios, we ran the spatial prioritization and irreplaceability analysis in 3 more combinations: only with the species suitability maps (excluding cost layers); only with species for which we obtained suitability maps based on both GBIF-only and combined data approaches without a cost layer (also known as biodiversity-only approach); and only with species for which we obtained habitat maps based on both GBIF-only and combined data approaches with the human footprint index cost layer.

Both GBIF data (GBIF, 2022) and Facebook data (Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2022) are publicly available. All the R scripts are available in the following public GitHub repository: https://github.com/ShawanChowdhury/SocialMedia_ConservationPlanning.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<table><caption>**FIGURE 1** Gaps in restricting biodiversity data to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF): (a) the species-wise percentages of biodiversity records (each row represents 1 species) that were missing when Facebook data were excluded (e.g., 0 indicates 0% data missing with GBIF-only data, 100 indicates 100% data missing with GBIF-only data, and 50 indicates the same number of records from Facebook and GBIF were obtained) and (b) the number of species for which we obtained habitat suitability maps with GBIF-only and combined data (all records).</caption><thead><tr><th>Group</th><th>Total species</th><th>GBIF-only data</th><th>Combined data</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Birds</td><td>566</td><td>405</td><td>472</td></tr><tr><td>Butterflies</td><td>305</td><td>65</td><td>226</td></tr></tbody></table>

## RESULTS

### Data distribution

Our cleaned combined data set included 47,077 georeferenced records for 472 species of birds (41,476 records) and 226 species of butterflies (5,601 records). We obtained 49% of the records from GBIF (n = 22,885), including 540 species (428 birds and 112 butterflies), and 51% of the records from Facebook, including 158 new species (compared with GBIF; 44 birds and 114 butterflies). Facebook data provided substantial variations across species and taxa (Figure 1a; Appendix S2). For butterflies, the average number of occurrence records (per species) jumped from 2 to 25 after including Facebook data, whereas GBIF data never represented more than 21% of species' records (Figure 1a). For birds, the inclusion of Facebook records raised the average number of occurrence records per species from 48 to 88. Although there were no butterfly species with GBIF-only distribution data, there were 18 bird species for which we obtained data only from GBIF (Figure 1a).
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

## Habitat suitability maps

The overall model performance was good with both data sets. After including Facebook data, the average AUC score only increased from 0.92 to 0.93. However, using GBIF-only data led to 228 species (33%) not being included in the modeling due to a limited number of spatial observation records. This was especially true for butterflies (161 species, 71% of butterflies), less so for birds (67 species, 14% of birds) (Figure 1b).

## Spatial conservation prioritization

With GBIF-only data, the spatial prioritization process identified that 37.45% of the country's area was required for birds (55,600.51 km²) and 28.12% for butterflies (41,746.95 km²) to meet the target conservation coverage (see METHODS). After adding Facebook data, the prioritization process identified 40.14% of the area for birds (3,987.81 km² increase) and 34.46% of the area for butterflies (9,410.66 km² increase). When we ran the prioritization process, without the cost layer, the difference in identified important conservation areas (between GBIF-only and when adding Facebook data) was similar for birds (increased by 4,106.94 km²) and slightly lower (increased by 7,637.95 km²) for butterflies (Appendix S3).

For birds, with GBIF-only data, the prioritization process missed many important areas in the north, northeast, and southeast compared with the combined data. However, when considering the current land-cover patterns across Bangladesh (Figure 2a), there were no substantial differences in the proportion of land-cover type selection. For butterflies, priority areas identified using GBIF-only data also missed many parts in the northwest, southeast, and central parts of Bangladesh. However, similar to birds, there were few differences in land-cover types between the 2 schemes. The proportion of priority areas peaked along croplands and forests and was lowest for shrublands and herbaceous vegetation (Figure 2a–c; Appendix S4). In GBIF-only and combined data, the proportion of priority areas was highest for croplands and forests and lowest for shrublands and herbaceous vegetation (Figure 2a–c; Appendix S4).

Although testing whether the prioritization process identified more areas simply due to the inclusion of more species, we found that the number of important conservation areas identified by the prioritization process was slightly higher for birds and lower for butterflies—compared with the GBIF-only data (Figure 2b,c; Appendix S5). The result was similar when identifying important conservation areas based only on species common to both data sets. The number of conservation areas identified by the prioritization process was slightly higher for birds and lower for butterflies—compared with the GBIF-only data (Appendix S6).

Given our definition of a cost surface based on HFP, the priority areas were primarily distributed in places with a low level of anthropogenic impact (see METHODS) based on both GBIF-only and combined data for birds and butterflies. However, with the inclusion of Facebook data, the priority areas' mean and median HFP index increased slightly (Appendix S7).

After adding Facebook data, butterflies' mean and median HFP index of the priority areas increased from 12.75 to 13.84 and from 11.63 to 14.25, respectively. The mean and median HFP index for birds increased similarly from 13.66 to 14 and from 14.26 to 15.79, respectively.

## Irreplaceability score

Most priority areas had relatively low irreplaceability, but the scores improved markedly after adding Facebook data. For birds, 25% of priority areas had a score >0.00135 with combined data, compared with only 0.00125% with GBIF-only data (Figure 3a,b). For butterflies, 25% of priority areas had an irreplaceability score >0.0006 with combined data, compared with 0.00016% with the GBIF-only data (Figure 3c,d). The result was somewhat similar when we ran the irreplaceability analysis without a cost layer (Appendix S8), with species common in both GBIF-only and combined data sets but with the HFP index (Appendix S9), and with species common in both GBIF-only and combined data sets but without the HFP index (Appendix S10).

Although additional Facebook data resulted in little difference in identifying the most crucial priority areas (top 10%) for birds (Figure 3a,b), we obtained marked differences for butterflies (Figure 3c,d). With the addition of Facebook records, for birds, irreplaceability scores increased in central, northwestern, and southeastern Bangladesh (Figure 3a,b), whereas, for butterflies, the irreplaceability scores increased substantially in the northeast and east (Figure 3c,d).

## DISCUSSION

Bangladesh, like many tropical countries, is highly biodiverse. Yet, knowledge of most of its species' distribution is limited (Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2023; IUCN Bangladesh, 2015; Chowdhury, Fuller et al., 2023). The ubiquitous availability of digital phones and cameras creates abundant opportunities for people in less-represented countries to post their biodiversity photographs on social media. We found that data obtained from social media had a significant capacity to inform important conservation decision-making (priority areas identified increased by 4000–10,000 km²). Our prioritization scheme that included the Facebook data identified more areas, especially due to the inclusion of more species in the analysis. The number and location of identified conservation priority areas increased sharply after adding Facebook data, and there were marked differences in the most valuable irreplaceable areas (between schemes with and without these data), especially for butterflies.

The increasing popularity of citizen science has greatly improved our understanding of species distributions in recent years. There has been a 12-fold increase in biodiversity data in GBIF since 2007 (Heberling et al., 2021), albeit mostly from the Global North (Hughes et al., 2021; Slade & Rui Ong, 2023). In countries like Bangladesh, with a lack of natural history museums and systematic monitoring schemes, citizen-derived data
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 (a) Land cover in Bangladesh and the spatial mismatch in identifying priority cells for (b) birds and (c) butterflies.</figcaption></figure>

can play an important role in boosting the volume of biodi-
versity data. When we included Facebook data, our occurrence
records doubled. Remarkably, data for more than two-thirds of
butterfly species were only available from Facebook. During our
initial data collation for birds in GBIF, we did not collect their
original data source; however, based on a random check, the
majority came from eBird, and the contribution of museum
data was negligible. Bangladesh has many active eBird users,
but there are not many butterfly enthusiasts that use specialized
butterfly citizen science applications, which probably caused
the difference in GBIF records between birds and butterflies
(41,476 vs. 5,601, respectively [Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2022]).

By including observation records from Facebook, our sys-
tematic conservation planning approaches identified many new
important areas from the northeastern and southeastern parts
of Bangladesh. Despite being home to many charismatic species
and biodiversity hotspots, the importance of these areas for
biodiversity conservation remains unnoticed. These areas are
occupied mainly by indigenous communities, are distant from
metropolitan areas, and lack familiarity among most residents
with citizen science applications with dedicated biodiversity
monitoring schemes (Chowdhury, Fuller et al., 2023). Many
people living in these areas are, however, Facebook users. More-
over, wildlife photographers from other parts of Bangladesh
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3** Comparison of the differences in classification of the importance of priority cells for (a, b) birds and (c, d) butterflies in Bangladesh (red rectangles, areas with key differences). Irreplaceability scores were calculated following Ferrier et al. (2000) and were calculated separately for each species (value range: 0–1). Values were summed to produce an overall irreplaceability score for each planning unit. Irreplaceability scores >1 represent the most critical conservation areas.</figcaption></figure>

often visit these regions and share their photographs on Facebook. Therefore, our results highlight the great utility of combining biodiversity repositories and social media data for conservation monitoring and planning, across scales, especially in less-monitored regions (Kelling et al., 2019).

Our results should be interpreted with caution. Citizen science data are highly spatially biased and largely centered around major cities, which might have an impact on our results. However, we followed a range of approaches to control the

survey bias (e.g., spatial thinning) and model prediction (e.g., the checkerboard2 evaluation method to control biased sampling). Besides, the scope of our analyses does not include guiding PA expansion in Bangladesh; rather, we carried out an academic exercise to assess the possible role of diversified biodiversity data sources in spatial conservation prioritization. PA planning requires the consideration of complex sociopolitical constraints, in addition to knowledge of biodiversity distribution. Still, our results can be used by decision-makers in
Bangladesh to identify new areas for biodiversity conservation within Bangladesh's forest coverage map developed by the Bangladesh Forest Department. Furthermore, this knowledge can support future PA planning and expansion in situations where large amounts of biodiversity data might not (yet) be available from international repositories such as GBIF, as is the case for Bangladesh.

Although social media can play an important role in supporting biodiversity conservation assessments, there remain considerable challenges to capturing and collating such data. First, although biodiversity data can be harvested from different social media channels (Flickr, Twitter), we used only Facebook in our study because Facebook groups in Bangladesh are regularly monitored by group moderators, unlike many other social media platforms. Second, capturing biodiversity data from Facebook is very time-consuming, taking about 380 hours to harvest data for all 680 species in our study (Chowdhury, Ahmed, et al., 2023; Chowdhury, Aich, et al., 2022, 2023). Third, Facebook photographs do not contain specific geolocation information, resulting in frequent coordinate uncertainty when georeferencing. Finally, accurate species identification from Facebook photographs requires high-quality pictures and a high level of taxonomic expertise.

Taking photographs rich in taxonomic information is difficult, and many species remain consequently unidentified. To enhance semistructured monitoring in citizen science (Kelling et al., 2019), Facebook group moderators could help train recorders, and photos could have automated GPS records attached. In addition, citizen science records could be enhanced using novel technologies, such as camera traps and artificial intelligence for automated image recognition (van Klink et al., 2022). Furthermore, platforms more narrowly dedicated to recording biodiversity data (e.g., eButterfly, Flora Incognita, iNaturalist) could be used to augment Facebook (and other social media) data. In turn, information from such, more dedicated sources could be used to develop and train deep-learning image classification and identification models (Jarić et al., 2020), especially for lesser-known tropical species. Overall, promoting the importance of citizen science in biodiversity conservation and the broader availability of digital apps can generate extensive data from remote areas. Moreover, citizen science can also heighten awareness of biodiversity and help engender a sense of social responsibility or social license for conservation (Kelly et al., 2019).

Our understanding of tropical biodiversity remains limited. Yet, with the increasing popularity of mobile phones and social media platforms, millions of users habitually share valuable biodiversity information through photographs. Such information, if carefully harvested and collated, could significantly decrease the Wallacean shortfall (Hortal et al., 2015). Biodiversity monitoring needs a culture of integration (Kühl et al., 2020; Chowdhury, Fuller et al., 2023), and it is important to align different data sources. With the addition of biodiversity data collected from Facebook (or similar sources), knowledge of many range-restricted species can be significantly improved and inform more effective conservation. Although our study focused on Bangladesh, its methods could be applied to many

tropical developing countries with sufficiently good internet penetration and an active culture of social media use. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework prioritizes area-based conservation approaches, placing a premium on rapidly improving knowledge of species distributions. Combining data from multiple repositories, including social media, should thus be a priority to improve the quality of large-scale conservation planning. In short, if the limitations of capturing, cleaning, and collating biodiversity information from social media platforms can be overcome, there is an enormous potential for improving biodiversity conservation globally and especially in tropical megadiverse countries.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We sincerely thank all contributors of data to Facebook and GBIF employed in analyses in this manuscript. S.C. and A.B. gratefully acknowledge the support of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) and the sMon project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG-FZT 118, 202548816). R.A.C. acknowledges personal funding from the Academy of Finland (#348352) and the KONE Foundation (#202101976). V.S. is supported by a Ramón y Cajal research fellowship (RYC2021-033065-I) granted by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.

Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Queensland, as part of the Wiley - The University of Queensland agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

## ORCID

Shawan Chowdhury https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2936-5786
Richard A. Fuller https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9468-9678
Shofiel Alam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0354-4658
Ricardo A. Correia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7359-9091
Moreno Di Marco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8902-4193
Enrico Di Minin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5562-318X
Ivan Jarić https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2185-297X
Richard J. Ladle https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3200-3946
Uri Roll https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5418-1164
Valerio Sragaglia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4775-7049
Aletta Bonn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8345-4600

## REFERENCES

* Aiello-Lammens, M. E., Boria, R. A., Radosavljevic, A., Vilela, B., & Anderson, R. P. (2015). spThin: An R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. *Ecography*, *38*, 541–545.

* Andrachuk, M., Marschke, M., Hings, C., & Armitage, D. (2019). Smartphone technologies supporting community-based environmental monitoring and implementation: A systematic scoping review. *Biological Conservation*, *237*, 430–442.

* Bradshaw, C. J., Sodhi, N. S., & Brook, B. W. (2009). Tropical turmoil: A biodiversity tragedy in progress. *Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment*, *7*, 79–87.

* Buchhorn, M., Smets, B., Bertels, L., De Roo, B., Lesiv, M., Tsendbazar, N.-E., Herold, M., & Fritz, S. (2020). *Copernicus Global Land Service: Land Cover 100m: collection 3: epoch 2019: Globe 2020*. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3939050

* Butchart, S. H. M., Clarke, M., Smith, R. J., Sykes, R. E., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Harfoot, M., Buchanan, G. M., Angulo, A., Balmford, A., Bertzky, B., Brooks, T. M., Carpenter, K. E., Comeros-Raynal, M. T., Cornell, J., Ficetola, G. F., Fishpool, L. D. C., Fuller, R. A., Geldmann, J., Harwell, H.,
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

... Burgess, N. D. (2015). Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. *Conservation Letters*, *8*, 329–337.

Callaghan, C. T., Mesaglio, T., Ascher, J. S., Brooks, T. M., Cabras, A. A., Chandler, M., Cornwell, W. K., Cristóbal Ríos-Málaver, I., Dankowicz, E., Urfi Dhiya'ulhaq, N., Fuller, R. A., Galindo-Leal, C., Grattarola, F., Hewitt, S., Higgins, L., Hitchcock, C., James Hung, K.-L., Iwane, T., Kahumbu, P., ... Young, A. N. (2022). The benefits of contributing to the citizen science platform iNaturalist as an identifier. *PLoS Biology*, *20*, Article e3001843.

Callaghan, C. T., Poore, A. G., Mesaglio, T., Moles, A. T., Nakagawa, S., Roberts, C., Rowley, J. J. L., Vergés, A., Wilshire, J. H., & Cornwell, W. K. (2021). Three frontiers for the future of biodiversity research using citizen science data. *Bioscience*, *71*, 55–63.

Chamberlain, S., Barve, V., Mcglinn, D., Oldoni, D., Desmet, P., Geffert, L., & Ram, K. (2022). *rgbif: Interface to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility API*. R package version 3.7.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgbif

Chandler, M., See, L., Copas, K., Bonde, A. M. Z., López, B. C., Danielsen, F., Legind, J. K., Masinde, S., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Newman, G., Rosemartin, A., & Turak, E. (2017). Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. *Biological Conservation*, *213*, 280–294.

Chowdhury, S. (2023). Threatened species could be more vulnerable to climate change in tropical countries. *Science of The Total Environment*, *858*, Article 159989.

Chowdhury, S., Ahmed, S., Alam, S., Callaghan, C., Das, P., Marco, M. D., Minin, E. D., Jarić, I., Labi, M., Rokonuzzaman, M., Roll, U., Sbragaglia, V., Siddika, A., & Bonn, A. (2023). *A standard protocol for harvesting biodiversity data from Facebook*. *EcoEvoRxiv*. https://doi.org/10.32942/X2XS4F

Chowdhury, S., Aich, U., Rokonuzzaman, M., Alam, S., Das, P., Siddika, A., & Fuller, R. A. (2022). *Spatial occurrence data for the animals of Bangladesh derived from Facebook*. PANGAEA. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.948104

Chowdhury, S., Aich, U., Rokonuzzaman, M., Alam, S., Das, P., Siddika, A., Ahmed, S., Labi, M. M., Marco, M. D., Fuller, R. A., & Callaghan, C. T. (2023). Increasing biodiversity knowledge through social media: A case study from tropical Bangladesh. *Bioscience*, *73*, 453–459.

Chowdhury, S., Alam, S., Chowdhury, S. U., Rokonuzzaman, M. d., Shahriar, S. A., Shome, A. R., & Fuller, R. A. (2021). Butterflies are weakly protected in a mega-populated country, Bangladesh. *Global Ecology and Conservation*, *26*, Article e01484.

Chowdhury, S., Alam, S., Labi, M. M., Khan, N., Rokonuzzaman, M., Biswas, D., Tahea, T., Mukul, S. A., & Fuller, R. A. (2021). Protected areas in South Asia: Status and prospects. *Science of the Total Environment*, *811*, Article 152316.

Chowdhury, S., Fuller, R. A., Rokonuzzaman, M., Alam, S., Das, P., Siddika, A., Ahmed, S., Labi, M. M., Chowdhury, S. U., Mukul, S. A., Böhm, M., & Hanson, J. O. (2023). Insights from citizen science reveal priority areas for conserving biodiversity in Bangladesh. *One Earth*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.08.025

Chowdhury, S., Jennions, M. D., Zalucki, M. P., Maron, M., Watson, J. E., & Fuller, R. A. (2022). Protected areas and the future of insect conservation. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, *38*, 85–95.

Collen, B., Ram, M., Zamin, T., & Mcrae, L. (2008). The tropical biodiversity data gap: Addressing disparity in global monitoring. *Tropical Conservation Science*, *1*(2), 75–88.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2022). *Kunming–Montreal Global biodiversity framework*. Draft decision submitted by the President CBD/COP/15/L.25, 18 December 2022. https://www.cbd.int/conferences/2021-2022/cop-15/documents

Di Marco, M., Chapman, S., Althor, G., Kearnev, S., Besancon, C., Butt, N., Maina, J. M., Possingham, H. P., von Bieberstein, K. R., Venter, O., & Watson, J. E. M. (2017). Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. *Global Ecology and Conservation*, *10*, 32–42.

Di Minin, E., Tenkanen, H., & Toivonen, T. (2015). Prospects and challenges for social media data in conservation science. *Frontiers in Environmental Science*, *3*, Article 63.

Ferrier, S., Pressey, R. L., & Barrett, T. W. (2000). A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinement. *Biological Conservation*, *93*, 303–325.

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). (2022). *Filtered export of GBIF occurrence data*. https://doi.org/10.15468/dd.rghepr

Gurobi Optimization, LLC. (2021). *gurobi: Gurobi Optimizer 8.1 interface*. R package version 8.1-0. http://www.gurobi.com

Hanson, J. O. (2022). *wdpar: Interface to the World Database on Protected Areas*. R package version 1.3.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=wdpar

Hanson, J. O., Schuster, R., Morrell, N., Strimas-Mackey, M., Edwards, B. P. M., Watts, M. E., Arcese, P., Bennett, J., & Possingham, H. P. (2022). *prioritiztr: Systematic Conservation Prioritization in R*. R package version 7.2.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=prioritiztr

Heberling, J. M., Miller, J. T., Noesgaard, D., Weingart, S. B., & Schigel, D. (2021). Data integration enables global biodiversity synthesis. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, *118*, Article e2018093118.

Hortal, J., de Bello, F., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Lewinsohn, T. M., Lobo, J. M., & Ladle, R. J. (2015). Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. *Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics*, *46*, 523–549.

Hughes, A. C., Orr, M. C., Ma, K., Costello, M. J., Waller, J., Provoost, P., Yang, Q., Zhu, C., & Qiao, H. (2021). Sampling biases shape our view of the natural world. *Ecography*, *44*, 1259–1269.

IUCN Bangladesh. (2015). *Red list of Bangladesh: A brief on assessment result 2015*. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Bangladesh Country Office.

Jarić, I., Correia, R. A., Brook, B. W., Buettel, J. C., Courchamp, F., Di Minin, E., Firth, J. A., Gaston, K. J., Jepson, P., Kalinkat, G., Ladle, R., Soriano-Redondo, A., Souza, A. T., & Roll, U. (2020). iEcology: Harnessing large online resources to generate ecological insights. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, *35*, 630–639.

Kelling, S., Johnston, A., Bonn, A., Fink, D., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V., Bonney, R., Fernandez, M., Hochachka, W. M., Julliard, R., Kraemer, R., & Guralnick, R. (2019). Using semistructured surveys to improve citizen science data for monitoring biodiversity. *Bioscience*, *69*, 170–179.

Kelly, R., Fleming, A., Pecl, G., Richter, A., & Bonn, A. (2019). Social licence through citizen science: A tool for marine conservation. *Ecology & Society*, *24*, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10704-240116

Kühl, H. S., Bowler, D. E., Bösch, L., Bruelheide, H., Dauber, J., Eichenberg, D., Eisenhauer, N., Fernández, N., Guerra, C. A., Henle, K., Herbinger, I., Isaac, N. J. B., Jansen, F., König-Ries, B., Kühn, I., Nilsen, E. B., Pe'er, G., Richter, A., Schulte, R., ... Bonn, A. (2020). Effective biodiversity monitoring needs a culture of integration. *One Earth*, *3*, 462–474.

Lewis, S. L., Edwards, D. P., & Galbraith, D. (2015). Increasing human dominance of tropical forests. *Science*, *349*, 827–832.

Liu, C., Newell, G., & White, M. (2016). On the selection of thresholds for predicting species occurrence with presence-only data. *Ecology and Evolution*, *6*, 337–348.

Malhi, Y., Gardner, T. A., Goldsmith, G. R., Silman, M. R., & Zelazowski, P. (2014). Tropical forests in the Anthropocene. *Annual Review of Environment and Resources*, *39*, 125–159.

Marcenò, C., Padullés Cubino, J., Chytrý, M., Genduso, E., Salemi, D., La Rosa, A., Gristina, A. S., Agrillo, E., Bonari, G., Giusso Del Galdo, G., Ilardi, V., Landucci, F., & Guarino, R. (2021). Facebook groups as citizen science tools for plant species monitoring. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, *58*, 2018–2028.

Maxwell, S. L., Cazalis, V., Dudley, N., Hoffmann, M., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Stolton, S., Visconti, P., Woodley, S., Kingston, N., Lewis, E., Maron, M., Strassburg, B. B. N., Wenger, A., Jonas, H. D., Venter, O., & Watson, J. E. M. (2020). Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. *Nature*, *586*, 217–227.

Mukul, S. A., & Rashid, A. Z. M. M. (Eds.). (2017). *Protected areas: Policies, management and future directions*. Nova Science Publishers.

Muscarella, R., Galante, P. J., Soley-Guardia, M., Boria, R. A., Kass, J. M., Uriarte, M., & Anderson, R. P. (2014). ENMeval: An R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, *5*, 1198–1205.

Newton, P., Kinzer, A. T., Miller, D. C., Oldekop, J. A., & Agrawal, A. (2020). The number and spatial distribution of forest-proximate people globally. *One Earth*, *3*, 363–370.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

O'neill, D., Häkkinen, H., Neumann, J., Shaffrey, L., Cheffings, C., Norris, K., & Pettorelli, N. (2023). Investigating the potential of social media and citizen science data to track changes in species' distributions. *Ecology and Evolution*, *13*, Article e10063.

Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., & Sexton, J. O. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. *Science*, **344**, Article 1246752.

Pocock, M. J. O., Roy, H. E., August, T., Kuria, A., Barasa, F., Bett, J., Githiru, M., Kairo, J., Kimani, J., Kinuthia, W., Kissui, B., Madindou, I., Mbogo, K., Mirembe, J., Mugo, P., Muniale, F. M., Njoroge, P., Njuguna, E. G., Olendo, M. I., ... Trevelyan, R. (2019). Developing the global potential of citizen science: Assessing opportunities that benefit people, society and the environment in East Africa. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, **56**, 274–281.

R Core Team. (2021). *R: A language and environment for statistical computing*. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Ross, N. (2020). *fasterize: Fast polygon to raster conversion*. R package version 1.0.3.
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=fasterize

Sbragaglia, V., Coco, S., Correia, R. A., Coll, M., & Arlinghaus, R. (2021). Analyzing publicly available videos about recreational fishing reveals key ecological and social insights: A case study about groupers in the Mediterranean Sea. *Science of the Total Environment*, **765**, Article 142672.

Sbragaglia, V., Espasandin, L., Jarić, I., Vardi, R., Ramirez, F., & Coll, M. (2023). Tracking ongoing transboundary marine distributional range shifts in the digital era. *Marine Ecology Progress Series*, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps14309

Schmeller, D. S., Henry, P.-Y., Julliard, R., Gruber, B., Clobert, J., Dziock, F., Lengyel, S., Nowicki, P., Déri, E., Budrys, E., Kull, T., Tali, K., Bauch, B., Settele, J., Van Swaay, C., Kobler, A., Babij, V., Papastergiadou, E., & Henle, K. (2009). Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. *Conservation Biology*, **23**, 307–316.

Schuster, R., Hanson, J. O., Strimas-Mackey, M., & Bennett, J. R. (2020). Exact integer linear programming solvers outperform simulated annealing for solving conservation planning problems. *PeerJ*, **8**, Article e9258.

Slade, E. M., & Ong, X. R. (2023). The future of tropical insect diversity: Strategies to fill data and knowledge gaps. *Current Opinion in Insect Science*, **58**, Article 101063.

Symes, W. S., Edwards, D. P., Miettinen, J., Rheindt, F. E., & Carrasco, L. R (2018). Combined impacts of deforestation and wildlife trade on tropical biodiversity are severely underestimated. *Nature Communications*, **9**, Article 4052.

Toivonen, T., Heikinheimo, V., Fink, C., Hausmann, A., Hiippala, T., Järv, O., Tenkanen, H., & Di Minin, E. (2019). Social media data for conservation science: A methodological overview. *Biological Conservation*, **233**, 298–315.

Troudet, J., Grandcolas, P., Blin, A., Vignes-Lebbe, R., & Legendre, F. (2017). Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. *Scientific Reports*, **7**, Article 9132.

UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). (2021). *Protected area profile for Bangladesh from the World Database of Protected Areas*. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. www.protectedplanet.net

van Klink, R., August, T., Bas, Y., Bodesheim, P., Bonn, A., Fossøy, F., Høye, T. T., Jongejans, E., Menz, M. H. M., Miraldo, A., Roslin, T., Roy, H. E., Ruczyński, I., Schigel, D., Schäffler, L., Sheard, J. K., Svenningsen, C., Tschan, G. F., Wäldchen, J., ... Bowler, D. E. (2022). Emerging technologies revolutionise insect ecology and monitoring. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, **37**, 872–885.

Venter, O., Sanderson, E. W., Magrach, A., Allan, J. R., Beher, J., Jones, K. R., Possingham, H. P., Laurance, W. F., Wood, P., Fekete, B. M., Levy, M. A., & Watson, J. E. (2018). *Last of the wild project, version 3 (LWP-3): 2009 human footprint, 2018 release*. NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC).

Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. *Nature*, **515**, 67–73.

Zizka, A., Silvestro, D., Andermann, T., Azevedo, J., Duarte Ritter, C., Edler, D., Farooq, H., Herdean, A., Ariza, M., Scharn, R., Svantesson, S., Wengström, N., Zizka, V., & Antonelli, A. (2019). CoordinateCleaner: Standardised cleaning of occurrence records from biological collection databases. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, **10**, 744–751.

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

**How to cite this article:** Chowdhury, S., Fuller, R. A., Ahmed, S., Alam, S., Callaghan, C. T., Das, P., Correia, R. A., Di Marco, M. D., Di Minin, E. D., Jarić, I., Labi, M. M., Ladle, R. J., Rokonuzzaman, M., Roll, U., Sbragaglia, V., Siddika, A., & Bonn, A. (2023). Using social media records to inform conservation planning. *Conservation Biology*, e14161. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14161