GUIDE TO BESTPRACTICES FOR
GENERALISINGSENSITIVE SPECIESOCCURENCE DATA
Arthur D. Chapman andOliver Grafton

GUIDE TO BEST PRACTICES FOR GENERALISINGPRIMARY SPECIES-OCCURRENCE DATA

Introduction .............................................................................. 1
Principles ................................................................................. 2
Determining sensitivity .................................................................. 3
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SENSITIVITY ...................................................................................3
CATEGORIES OF SENSITIVITY ..........................................................................................................7
Listing sensitive taxa .................................................................. 10
Generalising textual information ..................................................... 11
Generalising spatial information ...................................................... 12
DOCUMENTATION ...........................................................................................................................12Documentation and metadata ........................................................ 13
DOCUMENTING SENSITIVITY .........................................................................................................14
Authentication and authorisation ..................................................... 16
References ............................................................................. 17
Appendix: Scenarios using criteria 1 and 2 as triggers .............................. 18
Glossary ................................................................................ 20

Chapman, A. D. and O. Grafton. 2008. Guide to Best Practices for Generalising
Primary Species-Occurrence Data, version 1.0. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity
Information Facility, 27 pp. ISBN: 87-92020-06-2.

1

Introduction
The unprotected distribution of Sensitive Primary Species Occurrence Data (for example theexact localities of rare, endangered or commercially valuable taxa) has been a concern of the
GBIF Secretariat since its beginning. In early 2006, GBIF initiated a process to address thisissue, especially in relation to data to be shared through the GBIF network and made visible
through the GBIF Data Portal.
A review of current approaches for obscuring or generalising such data was initiated in
February 2006 and an on-line survey conducted through Survey Monkey 1. A separate reporton the results was made available via the GBIF Web site 2 in early June 2006 (Chapman2006). An experts’ workshop was then held in early March 2007 that focussed on the various
technical issues involved (Chapman 2007a).
A final report on Dealing with Sensitive Primary Species Occurrence Data was developed
following these processes and discussions, and was presented to GBIF in April 2007
(Chapman 2007b). It is available via the GBIF Web site. This report made a number ofrecommendations, and many of these are included in this document.
The final step in this process has been to develop a Guide to Best Practices. This document
should be seen as an overriding guideline for institutions, data providers and GBIF Nodes to
use to develop their own in-house guidelines. Organisations and institutions should produce
their own internal document that incorporates the practices outlined in this document andrelated documents such as the Guide to Best Practices in Georeferencing (Chapman and
Wieczorek 2006) and incorporate them into their own working environment.
It is also important to understand the possible impact that approaches for restricting sensitive
data may have on biodiversity science and, while restricting the availability or resolution ofcertain data, not overly restricting the uses to which the data may be put. For that reason, a setof principles are elucidated below. Key among these is the need to make biodiversity
information freely available wherever possible, in the interests of science, the environment
and the biodiversity itself.
Two issues that this document has not covered, because they will need further discussion andagreement before robust recommendations can be made, are the issues of the privacy ofliving individuals and the development of Data Sharing and Data License Agreements. Bothof these issues have legal implications and vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Recommendations were made in the Report on Dealing with Sensitive Species Occurrence
Data (Chapman 2007) for GBIF to further explore these issues.
“The term best practice generally refers to the best possible way of doing
something; it is commonly used in the fields of business management, software
engineering, and medicine, and increasingly in government. […] The [qualified]term, ‘best current practice’, often represents the meaning in a more accurate way,
showing the possibility for future developments of ‘better practice’.”(Wikipedia: Best Practice).

1
2

Survey Monkey http://www.surveymonkey.com
http://www.gbif.org/prog/digit/sensitive_data/Summary_of_Responses_-_03.pdf

1

Principles
Biodiversity information should be made freely available to be shared globally toenable their use for not-for-profit decision-making, education, research and otherpublic benefit purposes. Making the full detail of biodiversity information
available should reduce the risk of damage to the environment and help safeguarda sustainable future. Where release will have the opposite effect, access to the fulldetail may need to be controlled.
Below are a set of high level principles related to the sharing of data generally, and thesharing of sensitive data in particular.
1. Wherever possible, environmental information should be freely available to all.
Generally this benefits the environment by increasing awareness, enabling better
decision-making and reducing risk of damage.
2. In a small number of cases, public access to information can result in environmental
harm. It should be recognised that in such cases, availability of information may need
to be controlled; although the presumption remains in favour of release and any
restrictions should be interpreted rigorously.
3. All data regarded as being sensitive should include a date for review of their
sensitivity status, along with documented reasons for the sensitivity status. The date
for review may be short or long depending on the nature of the sensitivity. Whenevera data provider receives an application for enhanced access to restricted data theyshould avoid assuming continued sensitivity and use it as an opportunity to revisit thedetermination.
4. If the data are to be restricted for distribution, then this should only be done to a copyof the data at the time of their distribution. Data should never be altered, falsified ordeleted from the stored record.
5. Documentation is essential for many reasons, and where data have been restricted or
generalised it is important that that information is recorded as metadata that remains
with the record.
6. Where data are restricted or generalized for distribution (such as the name of acollector, textual locality information, etc.) this should be documented by replacingwith appropriate wording − the field should not be left blank or null.
7. There are extremely strong reasons not to restrict data on related collections (e.g.
collector’s numbers in sequence, collector’s name, etc.) because of the restrictions
this places on data quality/ data validation procedures and the limits it places on theeffectiveness of filtered Push Technologies.
8. Users of sensitive data should respect any and all restrictions of access that the data
provider has placed on the data. If granted enhanced access to restricted information
users must not compromise or otherwise infringe the confidentiality of suchinformation.
9. Data providers should respect the needs of data users to have access to data anddocumentation in order to determine the ‘fitness for use’ of the data, and to ensurethat analyses are robust and not misleading.

2

Determining Sensitivity
As a first step, information holders need to identify any data which are regarded as‘sensitive’. Sensitive information is any which if released to the public, would result in an‘adverse effect’ on the taxon or attribute in question or to a living individual. A number offactors need to be taken into account when determining sensitivity, including type and levelof threat, vulnerability of the taxon or attribute, type of information, and whether it is alreadypublicly available. Determining these factors leads us to a criteria-based approach.
Two examples of sensitivity criteria that provide a starting point for the development of
criteria are those developed by the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) in the UK(National Biodiversity Network 2002, 2004), and the Department of Environment andConservation in New South Wales, Australia (Department of Environment and Conservation
2007).
Below are a series of criteria for determining the sensitivity of taxa and data along withrecommended metadata statements for documenting the reasons for the determination. The
first two are for use by biodiversity data holders and those creating trigger lists of potentiallysensitive taxa and refer largely to the taxa themselves. The last two are for use by biodiversity
data holders and deal with an assessment of the data they hold and are considering making
available – they are not suitable for the creation of trigger lists.
The criteria are used to determine:
1. Risk of Harm
2. Impact of Harm
3. Sensitivity of Data
4. Decision on release &Category of sensitivity

An assessment of whether the taxon is
subject to harmful human activity.
An assessment of the sensitivity of the taxon
to the harmful human activity.
An assessment on whether the release ofdata will increase harm.
A balanced decision regarding the release of
the data and a determination of the categoryof sensitivity, and thus the level ofgeneralisation, of the data for release.

A set of scenarios using Criteria 1 and 2 below for determining triggers for sensitivity of taxa
is attached as an Appendix to this chapter.

Criteria for Determining Sensitivity
The first step in the process of determining sensitivity is to make an assessment on whether or
not the taxon is subject to a harmful human activity and if the availability of related
biodiversity data will increase the likelihood of the harmful activity occurring. If it is notthen there would appear no reason to list it as a potential environmentally sensitive taxon. It
is recommended that you use the documented wording supplied but with additional
supporting rational documenting the specifics of the threat, for example:“The taxon is at risk from harmful human activity –it is subject to attack by
Phytophthora which is transported by human operated vehicles.”

1. RISK OF HARM
Assess whether the taxon is subject to a harmful human activity.
1.1. Is the taxon subject to a harmful humanYes: Document using statement 1a with3

activity?

1.2. Is there established evidence of current
or recent occurrences of the harmful
human activity?
1.3. Will availability of related biodiversity
data increase the likelihood of theharmful human activity taking place?

supporting rationale.
Go to 1.2
No: Document using statement 1b[Taxon is not sensitive]
Go to 3
Yes: Document using statement 1c withsupporting rationale.
Go to 1.3
No: Document using statement 1d withsupporting rationale.
Go to 1.3
Yes: Document using statement 1e withsupporting rationale.
Go to 2
No: Document using statement 1f withsupporting rationale.
Go to 2

1a – The taxon is at risk from a harmful human activity.
1b – There is no significant risk of a harmful human activity.
1c – There is established evidence of actual or recent harm to the taxon
1d – There is currently no established evidence of actual harm to the taxon.
1e – Availability of biodiversity data will increase the likelihood of the harmful humanactivity taking place.
1f – Availability of biodiversity data will not increase the likelihood of the harmful
human activity taking place.
The next step is to determine if the taxon is sensitive to that human harm or whether it issuitably robust so as not to be adversely affected.

2. IMPACT OF HARM
Assess the sensitivity of the taxa to the harmful human activity.
2.1. Does the taxon have characteristics thatmake it significantly vulnerable to theharmful human activity?
2.2. Is the taxon vulnerable to harmful
human activity over its total range, or
are there areas (such as in conservation
zones, or other parts of the world) where
the taxon is not at the same level of risk?

Yes: Document using statement 2a withsupporting rationale.
Go to 2.2
No: Document using statement 2b andsupporting rationale.
Go to 2.2
Yes: Document using statement 2c withsupporting rationale.
Go to 3
No: Document using statement 2d withsupporting rationale.
Go to 3

2a – The taxon has characteristics that make them significantly vulnerable to theharmful human activity.
2b – The taxon is not significantly vulnerable to the harmful human activity.
2c – The taxon is vulnerable to harmful human activity over its total range.
2d – The taxon is not vulnerable to harmful human activity over its total range and/or
there are areas where the taxon occurs but is not at significant risk.
Once it has been decided that the taxon is subject to a significant risk and impact from harmor not, then a decision needs to be taken on whether the release of specific data on that taxon– or other related data – will increase the risk and impact of harm.

3. SENSITIVITY OF DATA
Assess whether the release of data will increase harm.
43.1. Is the content and detail of thebiodiversity data such that theirrelease would enable someone tocarry out a harmful activity upon thetaxon or attribute?

Yes: Document using statement 3a withsupporting rationale.
Go to 3.2
No:
[Data are not sensitive]
Document using statement 3b withsupporting rationale
Go to 43.2. Is information already in the publicdomain, or already known to thoseindividuals or groups likely toundertake the harmful activity?

Yes: Document using statement 3d withsupporting rationale.
Go to 3.3

3.3. Would disclosure damage apartnership or relationship(especially where the maintenance of
which is essential to helping achievea specific conservation objective)?

Yes: Document using statement 3e withsupporting rationale.
Go to 3.4
No: Document using statement 3f withsupporting rationale.
Go to 3.4

3.4. Would disclosure allow the locationsof sensitive features to be derived
through combination with otherpublicly available information
sources?

Yes: Document using statement 3g withsupporting rationale.
Go to 4
No: Document using statement 3h withsupporting rationale.
Go to 4No:

Document using statement 3c withsupporting rationale.
Go to 3.3

3a – The content and detail of the data is such that their release would enable someone
to carry out a harmful activity upon the taxon or attribute.
3b – The content and detail of the data if released would not enable someone to carryout a harmful activity upon the taxon or attribute.
3c – The information is not in the public domain, and is not already known toindividuals or groups likely to undertake harmful activities.
3d – The information is already in the public domain, or is already known to theindividuals or groups likely to undertake harmful activities.
3e – Disclosure of the data is likely to damage a partnership or relationship themaintenance of which is essential to helping achieve a specific conservation
objective.
3f – Disclosure of the data will not damage any partnership or relationship essential toconservation.
3g – Disclosure would allow the locations of sensitive features to be derived throughcombination with other publicly available information sources
3h – Disclosure will not allow the locations of sensitive features to be derived throughcombination with other publicly available information sources
The final step is to make an overall assessment based on the three criteria above and to
document the overall decision using the combined information documented in making eachof the earlier decisions. Once it has been determined that the data should or should not bereleased, then it is important that a decision is made on the Category of Sensitivity, and thelevel of generalisation for the release of the data.

4. DECISION ON RELEASE & CATEGORY OF SENSITIVITY
Make a balanced decision regarding the release of data anddetermining the category and level of generalisation

54.1. On balance, considering criteria 1 to 3
above and any important wider context,
will releasing the information
increase the risk of environmental
harm or harm to a living person?

Yes: Document using statement 4a.
Go to 4.2

4.2. Is the taxon distinctive and of highbiological significance, under highthreat from exploitation/ disease orother identifiable threat where evengeneral locality information may
threaten the taxon? Or could the releaseof any part of the record cause
irreparable harm to the environment or
to an individual?

Yes: Document using statement 4c, collate
all supporting rationale and document
the decision to withhold the data.
Go to Category 1
No:
Go to 4.3

4.3. Is the taxon such that the provision of
precise locations at finer than 0.1
degrees (~10 km) would subject the
taxon to threats such as disturbanceand exploitation? Or does the record
include highly sensitive information,
the release of which could cause
extreme harm to an individual or theenvironment?

Yes: Document using statement 4d, collate
all supporting rationale and document
the decision to release the data.
Go to Category 2

4.4. Is the taxon such that the provision of
precise locations at finer than 0.01
degrees (~1 km) would subject the
species to threats such as collection ordeliberate damage? Or does the record
include sensitive information, therelease of which could cause harm to
an individual or the environment?

Yes: Document using statement 4e, collate
all supporting rationale and document
the decision to release the data.
Go to Category 3
No:
Go to 4.5

4.5. Is the taxon subject to low to medium
threat if precise locations (i.e. locations
with a precision greater than 0.001
degrees or 100m) become publicly
available and where there is some riskof collection or deliberate damage?

Yes: Document using statement 4f, collate all
supporting rationale and document thedecision to release the data.
Go to Category 4
No: Document using statement 4g, collate
all supporting rationale and document
the decision to release the data.
Data should be publicly released

No:

Document using statement 4b.
Go to 4.5

No:
Go to 4.4

4a – On balance, release of the information will, or is likely to, increase the risk ofenvironmental harm or harm to a living person.
4b – On balance, release of the data will not increase the risk of environmental harm or
harm to a living person.
4c – The species is a distinctive species of high biological significance, is under highthreat from exploitation/ disease or other identifiable threat and even general
locality information may threaten the taxon, or the release of the information
could cause irreparable harm to the environment, an individual, or some otherfeature. [Category 1]

6

4d – The species is classed as highly sensitive, and the provision of precise locations
would subject the species to threats such as disturbance and exploitation, and/or
the record includes highly sensitive information, the release of which could cause
extreme harm to the environment or an individual. [Category 2]
4e – The species is classed as of medium to high sensitivity, and the provision of precise
locations could subject the species to threats such as collection or deliberate
damage, and/or the record includes sensitive information, the release of which
could cause harm to the environment or to an individual. [Category 3]
4f – The species is classed as of low to medium sensitivity, and the provision of precise
locations could subject the species to threats such as disturbance and exploitation.
Detailed data may be made available to individuals under license. [Category 4]
4g – The species is classed as of low sensitivity, and the distribution of precise locations
is unlikely to subject the species to significant threat, and/or the record includes
information of low sensitivity, the release of which is unlikely to cause harm to
the environment or to any individual. The data should be released to the public‘as-held’[Not Environmentally Sensitive]
In the on-line survey, a number of respondents identified data awaiting publication, data
subject to ongoing research, and incomplete or unchecked data as data that they would classas sensitive, and thus subject to restrictions on release. These are data whose sensitivity has ashort time frame and it is important that a time for release or review be clearly documented.
They would most likely fall under criterion 3.3 above and would be documented accordinglywith the supporting rationale being “awaiting publication”, etc.
NB. All data regarded as being sensitive, should include a date for review of their
sensitivity status, along with documented reasons for the sensitivity status. The date
for review may be short or long depending on the nature of the sensitivity.
The Categories of Sensitivity (below) are largely based on those from the New South Wales
Department of Environment and Conservation (2007).

1. Categories of Sensitivity
Criterion

Reasoning

Category 1 –Species orrecords for which norecords will be provided
at all, or which are only
released as present withina large region such as acounty, watershed, etc.

The reason for non-disclosure is that:
1. a distinctive species of high biological significance is underhigh threat from exploitation/ disease or other identifiablethreat where even general locality information may threaten
the taxon.
2. the information in the record is of such a nature that its
release could cause irreparable harm to the environment, toan individual or to some other feature.
Data may only be supplied under strict License conditions or aspresence in a large region such as a watershed, county, or
biogeographic region.

Category 2 – Species orrecords for which

The reasons for restriction are that:
1. The species is classed as highly sensitive, and the provision7

Criterion
coordinates will be
publicly available‘denatured’ (to 0.1
degrees) and/or otherinformation in the record
is generalized. Finer
scale data (Category 3 or
4 or detailed data) may besupplied to individuals
under License.

Reasoningof precise locations would subject the species to threats suchas disturbance and exploitation.
2. The record includes highly sensitive information, the releaseof which could cause extreme harm to an individual or to theenvironment.
Data are supplied to the public
1. with the georeference denatured to 0.1 degrees (~10 km)
and/or
2. with sensitive fields generalized or removed and replacedwith suitable replacement wording.
Data may be supplied at finer scales on request under theconditions of a written data agreement, usually a Data Licence
Agreement. When data are provided to clients, they will beadvised which species or fields are sensitive and may have theircoordinates denatured to that available under Categories 3 or 4.
NB. In the case where the sensitivity is triggered by fields otherthan the georeference, it may be more appropriate to classthe record as Category 3 or 4.

Category 3 – Species orrecords for which
coordinates will be
publicly available‘denatured’ (to 0.01
degrees) and/or otherinformation in the record
is generalized. Finer
scale data (Category 3 or
4 or detailed data) may besupplied to individuals
under License.

The reasons for restriction are that:
1. The species is classed as of medium to high sensitivity, andthe provision of precise locations could subject the species tothreats such as disturbance and exploitation.
2. The record includes sensitive information, the release ofwhich could cause harm to an individual or to theenvironment.
Data are supplied to the public
1. with the georeference denatured to 0.01 degrees (~ 1 km)
and/or
2. with sensitive fields generalized or removed and replacedwith suitable replacement wording.
Data may be supplied at finer scales on request under theconditions of a written data agreement, usually a Data Licence
Agreement. When data are provided to clients, they will beadvised which species or fields are sensitive and may have theircoordinates denatured to that available under Category 4.
NB. In the case where the sensitivity is triggered by fields otherthan the georeference, it may be more appropriate to classthe record as Category 4.

Category 4 – Species orrecords for which
coordinates will be
publicly available‘denatured’ (to 0.001
degrees) and/or otherinformation in the record

The reasons for restriction are that:
1. The species is classed as of low to medium sensitivity, andthe provision of precise locations could lead to risk ofcollection or deliberate damage.
2. The record includes sensitive information, the release ofwhich could cause harm to an individual or to the8Criterion
is generalized. Detailed‘as-held’ data may besupplied to individuals
under License.

Reasoning
environment.
Detailed data may be supplied under the conditions of a written
data agreement, usually a Data Licence Agreement. When data
are provided to clients, they will be advised which species orfields are sensitive.

9

Listing Sensitive Taxa
Data are already distributed around the globe through duplicate specimens, etc. and althoughdata may be restricted from some institutions, others holding duplicates may be releasing thesame information. This may be through ignorance of what may be regarded as sensitive in thehome ranges of the taxon concerned as no universal list of what is regarded as ‘sensitive’ iscurrently available. Difficulties are compounded by the fact that a taxon may be sensitive in
one area, but not in another (and indeed may even be a weed or pest species in the second
location).
For these reasons it has been recommended that a trigger list of potential environmentallysensitive taxa should be created and linked through GBIF’s Electronic Catalogue (ECat) 3.
This would have the advantages of alerting data providers in other jurisdictions that a species
is potentially sensitive, and via ECat would provide links to synonyms. It is important to notethat the list should be regarded as a trigger to flag the need for a decision on the actual
sensitivity of sharing information using the criteria in the previous chapter, and not for
generating blanket restrictions. Not all endangered species are threatened through knowledgeof their locations and so should not be regarded as sensitive per se and thus the list of
potential environmentally sensitive taxa should be much smaller than any existing list or rare
and threatened species.
The list should be created using Criteria 1 and 2 (refer to the previous Chapter and scenarios
in Annex 1), and should include additional information such as:• Name of Taxon• Criteria and supporting rationale for inclusion• Name of person or organisation responsible for the taxon being included• Geographic coverage of sensitivity (especially if only sensitive over part of its range
or within one jurisdiction)• Recommended Sensitivity Category• Date for Review
Jurisdictions may also wish to maintain a similar list for their own purposes, and it isrecommended that if they do so, they include the above information in all cases. The
advantages of making the information more broadly available is that it will alert other data
custodians that your jurisdiction regards the taxon as potentially sensitive, and alert users thatthey should take the sensitivity into account when publishing the results of their analyses, etc.
NB. Any list of potential environmentally sensitive taxa should be regarded asa trigger only, and any restrictions on availability of actual data should
be made on a case by case basis taking into account the listed criteria.

3

GBIF Electronic Catalogue http://www.gbif.org/prog/ecat

10Generalising Textual Information
In some cases, information in text fields might be regarded as sensitive under certain
circumstances. This may include such information as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Names of living persons
Locality information
The date of collection
The collector’s number
Habitat
Landholder information
Taxonomic names

Some of these may need to be restricted to stop co-relational analyses leading to deductions
on the localities of records that are restricted or generalized – for example the collector’sname, date, and collector’s numbers in sequence. In other cases, it may be necessary to hide
the name of a taxon in a list of collections in a biodiversity hot-spot or sensitive locality.
Such restrictions should not restrict the provision of the record as a whole. The data thatneeds to be hidden may be removed and replaced with suitable wording (see below), or
generalized – for example, just giving the name of a higher level taxonomic rank where thespecies is to be restricted.
NB. Whenever data in a textual field are restricted or generalized for
distribution (such as the name of a collector, textual locality
information, etc.) it should be documented by replacing it withappropriate wording – the field should not be left blank or null.
Examples of replacement wording include:•“name suppressed for reasons of privacy”;•“This specimen represents an endangered or threatened species. The specific locality
has been removed from the on-line record to protect this species from over-collection.
These data may be supplied to researchers on request”;•“This specimen represents an endangered or threatened species. The specific locality
has been generalized to presence within a grid of 0.1 degree resolution. Detailed data
may be supplied to researchers on request”.

NB. Where there is need to restrict a taxonomic name (for example, ofsensitive taxa as part of a survey), it may be possible to replace itwith a higher taxon name (genus/family, etc.), or to just report that
there are ‘x’ sensitive taxa present without providing names.
Occasionally, data providers may be tempted to restrict information in records related to asensitive record (in addition to the sensitive record itself), such as the collector’s name andnumbers in a sequence of records collected at the same location and time as a sensitive recordin order to reduce the possibility of the sensitive record being found through co-relational
analysis. However, if the collector’s name and number is removed from just the sensitive
record and not the others, it is unlikely that these could be deduced unless the seeker of the11information already has inside knowledge. For this reason, and others (see box below), it isrecommended that the data on related records not be restricted.
NB. There are extremely strong reasons not to restrict data on related
collections (collector’s numbers in sequence, collector’s name, habitat,etc.) because of the restrictions this places on data quality/ data
validation procedures and the limits it places on the effectiveness offiltered Push Technologies. Information in records related to a sensitive
record (but not in the sensitive record itself) should not be restricted
unless absolutely necessary.

Generalising Spatial Information
One of the most common requirements for generalising biodiversity information is togeneralise the spatial locality or georeference. Traditionally this has been done in many ways,
and there has been little consistency in methodologies, and very little documentation as towhat has been done in each case. This has considerably reduced the value of the data for
analysis, and often users are unaware that the data has even been modified.
Good practice dictates that whatever you do to generalise the data that you document it sothat users of the data know what reliance they can place in them.
Following considerable discussion among data providers and data users, it has been decided
to recommend that data providers who are generalising their data do so using a standard
methodology (see below), and to document this accordingly. As most biodiversity data are
currently made available using decimal degrees, the recommended method means that
protocols (such as Darwin Core) do not need modification, other than to allow for suitable
metadata documentation.
The method recommended below allows for several levels of generalisation that conform toCategories 1-4 described in the earlier Chapter on Determining Sensitivity.
The recommended method for generalisation is:Category

Sensitivity

Georeference

Category 1

ExtremeGeoreference not released or data may be released bywatershed/ bioregion/ county, etc. with no georeference
coordinates.

Category 2

High

Georeference rounded to 0.1 degree

Category 3

MediumGeoreference rounded to 0.01 degree

Category 4

Low

Georeference rounded to 0.001 degree

Not sensitive

Not sensitive

Georeference unrestricted.

Documentation
It is important to document the method and level of generalisation so that users are aware ofwhat has been done to the data, and what reliability they may be able to place in the data.
Currently, neither Darwin Core nor the ABCD protocols provide fields for the recommended
metadata. It has been recommended, however, that these protocols be modified to accept
12such metadata (see Chapter on Documentation and Metadata), but in the meantime, it isrecommended that the information be recorded in Comments fields.
As far as the generalisation of georeferencing data is concerned it is important to record thatthe data has been generalized using a ‘decimal geographic grid’, and record both:• Precision of the data provided (e.g. 0.1 degree; 0.001 degree, etc.)• Precision of the data stored or held (e.g. 0.0001 degree, 0.1 minute, 1 second, etc.)
The recommendations for metadata for inclusion in the Geospatial Element Definitions
Extension to Darwin Core (TDWG 2005) are set out in the next Chapter on Documentationand Metadata. Once they (or similar) have been adopted, then it is recommended that theappropriate fields be recorded and distributed with the data.
NB. If generalizing to a large region such as a watershed, biogeographic
region or a county, etc., then do not supply a georeference.

Documentation and Metadata
It is important that data be accurately documented so that users and others know exactly what
the data represent, and the reliance that can be placed in them. For example, a user needs theinformation to determine if the data are suitable for the analysis they are about to run. Many
data providers reported in the survey that one reason that they were reluctant to release someof their data was a fear that the data would be mis-used. If the data aren’t adequately
documented, then the likelihood of inadvertent mis-use is greatly increased as the user may
use the data in an analysis mistakenly thinking they are getting accurate point records, whenin reality, the data had been generalized to a 10 km grid square, and could be anywhere in a
100 square kilometre area. If running a climate modelling algorithm, for example, then thissort of error could result in a quite misleading result. For this reason alone, it is important todata providers, data users, and end users (such as environmental managers, policy makers,etc.) that the data are accurately described.
In particular, there should be a clear documentation of the ‘Access Constraints’ which could
include, for example, an indication of which parts of the data are sensitive (if any), reasonsfor sensitivity and conditions under which release is possible.

13Documenting Sensitivity“Metadata fulfils an essential function regarding communication to third parties, of accessconstraints and use conditions that the data generators intend to give to their data. It can beconsidered as an ‘aid’ in protecting data and information, since it will allow system users tovisualize the conditions established by the data generator for access and use of theinformation. Additionally, in case the data are not accessible, the metadata allows knowledgeof the conditions of access through other media (digital or not) as well as a summary of thecontent”. (Llinás, 2005).
Metadata has generally been used to refer to documentation of a whole dataset.
Documentation at the record level has usually been referred to just in comments. I prefer,
however, to term this ‘record-level metadata’ (see glossary) and to formalise the process. In
the previous chapter a recommendation was made that where data were generalized for
distribution, to document the level of generalisation - for example, that the data had been
generalized using a decimal geographic grid, and to record both the precision of the data
provided and the precision of the data stored or held. Also, in the chapter on Determining
Sensitivity, a series of documentation processes were recommended. Some of these may be
more appropriate for documenting the reasons for regarding a taxon as a potential
environmentally sensitivity taxon (Criteria 1 and 2), while the others (Criteria 3 and 4) areappropriate to the data themselves and belong as part of the broader record-level metadata.
To fully document the reasons for restricting data, however, it may be necessary to inherit the
documentation from Criteria 1 and 2 to the record level – for example, the reason that data
are restricted may include that the taxon is subject to harmful human activity.
At the moment, neither the Darwin Core nor ABCD standards have fields for recording thetype of record-level metadata that is recommended here. A number of recommendations havebeen made to the Taxonomic Databases Working Group (TDWG) for the inclusion of extra
fields to the Geospatial Element Definitions Extension to Darwin Core (TDWG 2005) and/or
to the Darwin Core itself. The recommendations included those shown in the table on thenext page.
The ‘DataSensitiveComments’ field here is perhaps equivalent to the ‘Access Constraints’
field in most dataset level metadata. The sort of information at the dataset level may include
something like:“This dataset is only available to the public at a summary resolution for the following
reason. Some of the information held within this dataset relates to species that arevulnerable to human disturbance or prejudice. Two species (Adelanthus
lindenbergianus, Athalamia hyaline) are significantly vulnerable to collecting. The
full detail of this sensitive information may be made available under licence tospecific organisations and individuals that need to know to avoid harm to theenvironment. Please contact the provider for more information.”
Until such time as these standards and protocols are modified, it is recommended that the data
be documented in comment fields, and as far as possible to record the same type of
information that would be included in the recommended fields above – i.e.
• That the data are sensitive;• The primary reasons the data are regarded as sensitive (see Criteria 1-4 the Chapter on
Determining Sensitivity) along with supporting rationale;• The date that the sensitivity of the data should be reviewed;
14

•
•

Precision of the data made available;
Precision of the original data stored or retained.

Field

Comments

DataSensitiveIndicator
DataSensitiveReason

Y/N flag that the observation is sensitive.
The primary reason why the data are sensitive. Suggested
format is either a picklist with values derived from Criteria 1-4
above (or a text field that combines the statements 1a-4g
attached to those criteria).
Further information on the reason(s) or supporting rationale fordetermining relevance of the Criteria for this record asrecommended above. [Free Text]
A date field documenting when the sensitive nature of the dateshould be reviewed. Especially important where the sensitivity
is just awaiting publication of results, etc.
The scale or the precision of the data made available via the
Darwin Core record – may be done as precision, e.g.
y 0 = 1 degree
y 1 = 0.1 degree
y 2 = 0.01 degree
y 3 = 0.001 degree
y 4 = 0.0001 degree
The scale or the precision of the data made stored or retained by
the data custodian – may be done as precision, e.g.
y 0 = 1 degree
y 1 = 0.1 degree
y 2 = 0.01 degree
y 3 = 0.001 degree
y 4 = 0.0001 degree
y Etc. or
may be more free text, such as ‘1 minute’, ‘0.1 minute’, ‘1
second’, etc. depending on how data are stored.

DataSensitiveComments

SensitiveDateForReview

PrecisionDataProvided

PrecisionDataStored

15

Authentication and Authorisation
As recommended by the experts’ workshop, and identified by many in the on-line survey,
responsibility for determining who may or may not have access to detailed data on sensitive
data, possibly through use of secure log-on, or one-off data license agreements, must be withthe data providers.
It was also agreed at the workshop that it is not the role of GBIF to manage the identification,verification or authorisation of users, nor to control authentication or log-on at the Data
Portal, but it may have a role in providing guidance and a suitable authentication method to
the Nodes.
It was reported at the experts’ workshop that the technical issues relating to the authenticationof a group or individual, and the use of roles, etc. is not a difficult task. There are several wellestablished protocols and working systems for authentication in use and these could easily be
adapted for use by data providers.
The main issue is in determining who the authorized users should be and how to determine
who are bona-fide users and who are not. This is a difficult issue and one that will need to be
explored over time. It is not something that can be recommended in this best practices
document; however the earlier report (Chapman 2007b) did make a number ofrecommendations on how this issue may be further explored.
It has been recommended that GBIF explore the issue of authentication with the view toproviding appropriate mechanisms that help data providers. It is therefore recommended thatdata providers wishing to develop secure authentication for their databases discuss the issue
with GBIF, or with their GBIF Node.
The recommendation made to GBIF in the earlier report (Chapman 2007b) was that:
GBIF explore the issue of authentication with the view to providing appropriate
mechanisms that help data providers identify users who can dig deeper and how.
Although GBIF shouldn’t have a role (at this stage at least) in vetting users, or inplacing controls on the GBIF Portal, it does have a role in providing guidance andassisting Nodes in implementing a suitable and robust authentication method.

16

References
Chapman, A.D. 2006. Questionnaire on Dealing with Sensitive Primary Species Occurrence Data − Summary of
responses. 61 pp. Copenhagen: GBIF.
http://www.gbif.org/prog/digit/sensitive_data/Summary_of_Responses_-_03.pdf. [Accessed 8 Apr. 2007].
Chapman, A.D. 2007a. Workshop on Dealing with Sensitive Species Occurrence Data. Held at: NatureServe
Offices, Arlington, Virgina, USA. 6-7 March 2007. Report. Copenhagen: GBIF. 30 pp. http://www.gbif.org./
Chapman, A.D. 2007b. Dealing with Sensitive Primary Species Occurrence Data. Report. Report to the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility 60pp. http://www.gbif.org./. Copenhagen: GBIF.
Chapman, A.D. and Wieczorek, J. (eds). 2006. Guide to Best Practices for Georeferencing. BioGeomancer
Consortium. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility. 90pp. ISBN: 87-92020-00-3.
http://www.gbif.org/prog/digit/Georeferencing See also Chapter 5 in this Manual.
Department of Environment and Conservation − NSW. 2007. Threatened Species Information Disclosure Policy(Version 3 Amended March 2007).
http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/content/sensitive_species_policy [Accessed 15 Mar 2007].
Llinás, J.V. 2005. Data and Information on Biodiversity and its Protection in the Digital Realm Ver. 1. Bogotá,
Colombia: Biological Resources Research Institute Alexandre von Humboldt. 43pp.
National Biodiversity Network Trust. 2002. NBN Data Exchange Principles. Version 3.2, April 2002.
<http://www.nbn.org.uk/downloads/files/DataExchange%20principles%202002.pdf> [Accessed 27 Mar
2007].
National Biodiversity Network Trust. 2004. The ‘Environmental Exception’ and access to information on
sensitive features. Version 1.3.2, Countryside Agencies’ Open Information Network Environmental
Information Regulations Guidance Note No. 1. Linked from www.nbn.org.uk/eir [Accessed 27 Mar 2007].
TDWG. 2005. Geospatial Extension to Darwin Core. Taxonomic Databases Working Group.
http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/DarwinCore/GeospatialExtension [Accessed 1 Apr 2007].

17

Appendix: Scenarios using Criteria 1 and 2 as Triggers
The following sets of scenarios show how the criteria statements given in the Chapter on
Determining Sensitivity may be used to develop summary statements for documenting thereasons why a taxon may be regarded as sensitive. The summary statement (in the whiteboxes), should also include supporting rationale, such as specific types of harm, etc. For
example in the second scenario (B) – the full statement may read something like:“Taxa could be at risk from harm from diseases carried on the wheels of forestry
machinery but occurrence is not affected by data availability.”This may apply to a species of plant in a forestry area susceptible to Phytophthora attack,the fungi being transferred on the wheels of forestry vehicles.

Criterion 1:
Scenario A
Criterion statement(s)Summary statement

1a – There is no significant risk of a harmful humanactivity.

The taxon is not sensitive.

Scenario B
Criterion statement(s)Summary statement

1a – The taxon is at risk from a harmful human activity.
1d – There is currently no established evidence of actual
harm to the taxon.
1f – Availability of biodiversity data will not increase
the likelihood of the harmful human activity taking
place.

The taxon could be at risk from harm
but likelihood of harm is not affectedby data availability.

Scenario C
Criterion statement(s)Summary statement

1a – The taxon is at risk from a harmful human activity.
1d – There is currently no established evidence of actual
harm to the taxon.
1e– Availability of biodiversity data will increase thelikelihood of the harmful human activity taking
place.

18

The taxon could be at risk from harmand the likelihood of harm is affectedby data availability.

Scenario D
Criterion statement(s)Summary statement

1a – The taxon is at risk from a harmful human activity.
1c – There is established evidence of actual or recent
harm to the taxon.
1f – Availability of biodiversity data will not increase
the likelihood of the harmful human activity taking
place.

The taxon is at risk from harm andthere is evidence to support this, but
occurrence is not affected by data
availability.

Scenario E
Criterion statement(s)Summary statement

1a – The taxon is at risk from a harmful human activity.
1c – There is established evidence of actual or recent harmto the taxon.
1e– Availability of biodiversity data will increase thelikelihood of the harmful human activity taking place.

The taxon is at risk from harm,
there is evidence to support this,and occurrence is affected by data
availability.

Criterion 2:
Scenario F
Criterion statement(s)Summary statement

2b – The taxon is not significantly vulnerable to theharmful human activity.
2d – The taxon is not vulnerable to harmful human activity
over its total range and/or there are areas where thetaxon is not at significant risk.

The taxon is not significantly
vulnerable to the harmful activity,and is not vulnerable to that activity
over its total range and there areareas where the taxon is not at
significant risk from that activity.

Scenario G
Criterion statement(s)Summary statement

2a – The taxon has characteristics that make it significantly
vulnerable to the harmful human activity.

The taxon is significantly
vulnerable to the harmful activity,
but is not vulnerable to that activity
over its total range and there areareas where the taxon is not at
significant risk from that activity.

2d – The taxon is not vulnerable to harmful human activity
over its total range and/or there are areas where thetaxon is not at significant risk.

Scenario H
Criterion statement(s)Summary statement

2a – The taxon has characteristics that make it significantly
vulnerable to the harmful human activity.

The taxon is significantly
vulnerable to the harmful activity,and is vulnerable to that activity
over its total range.

2c – The taxon is vulnerable to harmful human activity overits total range.

19

Glossary
Authentication: — refers to the determination of a user's identity, as well as determining
what a user is authorized to access. The most common form of authentication is user nameand password, although this also provides the lowest level of security.
Authorisation: — refers to the process of determining which individuals can be afforded
different access rights for authentication and data access.
Generalisation: — refers here to any modifications carried out to source data to conceal
sensitive content, typically by reducing the precision of the data (such as reporting at thelevel of a watershed, grid or county, citing just the nearest named place, or by deletingsome parts of the data). In geographic terms it refers to the conversion of a geographic
representation to one with less resolution and less information content; traditionallyassociated with a change in scale. Also referred to as: fuzzying, dummying-up, etc.
Record-level Metadata: — refers to documentation at the level or a record rather than for acomplete dataset. In this document it largely refers to documentation of the sensitivity
status of the record (or the species of which it is a part) along with access constraints
pertaining to the record and details of any generalisation of the data.
Sensitive data: — any data, that because of their nature, a data provider does not want tomake available in their raw state, e.g. precise localities of endangered taxa.

20

Index to Chapter 6
Guide to Best Practices in Georeferencing, 2
habitat, 11
harm

ABCD protocol, 13
authentication, 18

definition, 19

impact of, 4, 5
risk of, 4, 5

authorisation, 18

definition, 19
Categories of Sensitivity, 4, 8

impact of harm, 4, 5
landholder information, 11
lists of sensitive taxa, 10
living persons

determining, 7collector's number, 11
co-relational analysis, 11
Criteria for Determining Sensitivity, 4

names of, 11

scenarios, 23

locality information, 11
maximum uncertainty

Darwin Core, 13, 14, 16
Data License Agreements, 2
Data Sharing Agreements, 2
DataSensitiveComments, 16
DataSensitiveIndicator, 16
DataSensitiveReason, 16
date of collection, 11
decimal degrees, 13
decimal geographic grid, 13
Department of Environment and Conservation(NSW), 4, 8
documentation, 15

estimate, 16
metadata, 15
National Biodiversity Network (NBN), 4
on-line survey, 2PrecisionDataProvided, 16
PrecisionDataStored, 16
Principles, 3
randomisation

definition, 19
risk of harm, 4, 5
sensitive dataof generalized georeferences, 13

definition, 19

dummying up, 19
ECat, 10experts’ workshop, 2
fuzzying, 19
GBIF

sensitive taxa

listing of, 10
SensitiveDateforReview, 16
sensitivity

Categories of, 4, 8
determining, 4
documenting, 15
of data, 4determining, 6Data Portal, 2, 18
Nodes, 18
Secretariat, 2
generalisation

definition, 19
spatial information, 13
textual information, 11

sensitivity criteria, 4spatial information

generalisation of, 13

georeferences

Survey Monkey, 2taxonomic names, 11
textual information, 11

generalizing, 13
Geospatial Element Definitions Extension, 14,1621