Cited by 10Research Data Management PracticesConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementSpecies Distribution and Climate Change

Beyond spatial bias: understanding the colonial legacies and contemporary social forces shaping biodiversity data

Open access
Faxon, Hilary, Chapman, Melissa·2025·Environmental Research Letters

Abstract

With over 2 billion observations of species from across the earth, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) has become an influential repository of information for not only ecologists, but also conservation scientists and policy makers. Yet biodiversity data reveal more than species distributions. They reflect colonial histories, economic inequities, and cultural differences. This article argues for moving beyond ideas of ‘spatial bias’ in conservation science to highlight the colonial legacies and contemporary social forces that shape biodiversity data. Drawing on interviews with the GBIF staff and data publishers as well as critical mapping of GBIF data patterns, we visualize and analyze how and why colonial patterns persist and shift in this global biodiversity data. To explain diverse trajectories of postcolonial production of data, we identify three social forces–colonial legacies of collecting, infrastructures of international development, and contemporary data cultures–that structure biodiversity observation distributions and data ownership and availability. Together, these findings demonstrate how, even in the age of open access, colonial and postcolonial practices and politics continue to shape what we know about the natural world.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1748-9326/add6b6

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • "Data colonialism" is a real concern: researchers from well-resourced institutions can too easily extract recordings from tropical regions without equitable collaboration or local benefit-sharing.

    ““Data colonialism” is a real concern: researchers from well-resourced institutions can too easily extract recordings from tropical regions without equitable collaboration or local benefit-sharing (Faxon and Chapman 2025).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faxon, H., & Chapman, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Montana (US)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Published
2025-05-30
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
064053
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410221802
Cited by
10
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 2
FWCI
10.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
Keywords
GBIF, biodiversity data, colonial legacy, spatial bias, data ownership, data availability, data culture, conservation science, economic inequity, cultural differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review