University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability (SEAS) Associate Professor Neil Carter is co-author of "Biodiversity monitoring for a just planetary future," a new perspective piece published in Science on how global biodiversity monitoring can perpetuate social inequities. We asked Carter five questions to better understand the issues as well as the proposed actions that can be taken to make a shift in the right direction. 

This perspective piece is on how global biodiversity monitoring can perpetuate social inequities. Can you first explain what biodiversity monitoring is?

Global biodiversity monitoring takes advantage of data collected across various sources, like community scientists, natural history museums, universities, and governments. By synthesizing those data, we can monitor patterns and trends in biodiversity and use those insights to improve conservation planning.   

What are some of the ways that biodiversity data reflect legacies of social inequity?

Biodiversity data can reflect legacies of social inequities in complex ways. People and their choices can influence where biodiversity thrives or does not. For example, neighborhoods affected by racial and ethnic discrimination in U.S. housing policy in the 1930s (“redlining”) have lower bird densities than other neighborhoods. But social inequities may also influence where and when biodiversity data are collected, generating a misleading picture of biodiversity patterns. For example, government-managed protected areas may collect more data than community-managed and Indigenous lands, leading to inaccurate biodiversity assessments in the latter. 

Why were the ramifications of these disparities previously dismissed, and why is it important to now address them?

Previously, data disparities were considered a sampling bias that could be accounted for. However, the data disparities are more entrenched in human societies than previously thought, reflecting politics, economics, and human histories. Addressing these disparities is important, because they can misguide large investments in ecological restoration with downstream consequences on human wellbeing. Those misguided investments may in turn be perpetuating social inequities.   

With the growing availability of monitoring tools such as AI-supported sensors, we have more data than ever to help us understand global biodiversity and its degradation. Does the growing amount of data have the potential to help in addressing inequities?

More data will not address the underlying social inequities that influence biodiversity monitoring at regional and global scales. In fact, there is reason to believe that they might further entrench data disparities. 

What are some of the actions that you and your co-authors suggest can be taken to make a shift toward a just planetary future?

Rather than solely relying on new technologies, investments in monitoring should better understand local context and social landscape. This may entail connecting with more community-based partners to ensure the local human histories and capacities are incorporated in the monitoring. Complementing global frameworks with local knowledge generation and decentralized governance systems can help expose the data disparities and mitigate their impacts on conservation planning.   

The full perspective piece is available on the Science website.