of 106/106
Global Biodiversity Information Facility Participants’ Report 2011 Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)

Global Biodiversity Information Facility Participants’ Report 2011 Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)

  • View
    217

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Text of Global Biodiversity Information Facility Participants’ Report 2011 Global Biodiversity Information...

  • Global Biodiversity Information FacilityParticipants Report 2011Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)

  • GBIF Participants Report 2011 Background and contextGBIF has run an online Participant Reporting System in its current form from 2009-2011The previous reports are available here:2009: http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=29582010: http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=3075&l=en In response to feedback that the previous reports were too lengthy, the 2011 Participants Report is presented in this format of a deck of slides to enable reuse by Participants in relevant presentations.These slides are a complete analysis of the data provided by GBIF Participants in 2011, including a regional view to support the work of the regional subcommittees.Trends from 2009-2012 are included where a sufficient number of Participants have responded to a question over the three years. A highlights presentation, presented to the Governing Board at their 19th meeting in Lillehammer, 2012 will be available after the meeting here: http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=4823

  • 2010: 94 page report2011:Deck of slides available for use in relevant GBIF meetings2011 Participant Report: New format

  • GBIF Participants Report 2011 Contents IParticipant Reporting System objectives2011 Response RatesSection 1: EngagementNational NodesRegional ActivitiesTrainingOutreach and CommunicationSection 2: Informatics InfrastructurePriorities for Informatics Infrastructure

  • GBIF Participants Report 2011 Contents IISection 3: Biodiversity Science, Content and UseDiscovery and metadataDigitization and mobilizationNames services (ECAT)Data useSection 4: Strategic Partnerships and UptakeStrategic partnershipsParticipant use of the GBIF 2011 Work ProgrammeSection 5: Evaluating the Participant Reporting SystemThree main problems identifiedValue of the Participant Reporting System to GBIFs ParticipantsLessons learntConclusions

  • To provide a channel for GBIF Participants to report on the status of their activities and their implementation of the GBIF Work Programme To enable GBIF Participants to communicate their needs and priorities to the GBIF Secretariat

    To provide an overview of the activities carried out by the GBIF network as a wholeParticipant Reporting System Objectives

  • Response rates for countries and economies

  • Country and Economy Participants providing (partial) 2011 reportsResponse rates for countries and economies

    AfricaAsiaEuropeLatin AmericaNorth AmericaOceaniaBeninChinese TaipeiAndorraArgentinaCanadaAustraliaBurkina FasoIndiaAustriaColombiaUSANew ZealandCameroonIndonesiaBelgiumCosta RicaGhanaJapanDenmarkCubaGuineaPakistanFinlandMexicoKenyaPhilippinesFrancePeruSouth AfricaRepublic of KoreaGermanyTogoIcelandUgandaIrelandLuxembourgNorwayPolandSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenThe NetherlandsUnited Kingdom

  • Country and Economy Participants not providing 2011 reportsResponse rates for countries and economies

    AfricaAsiaEuropeLatin AmericaNorth AmericaOceaniaCentral African RepublicBulgariaChileCongoEstoniaNicaraguaEquatorial GuineaPortugalUruguayMadagascarSwitzerlandMauritaniaMoroccoTanzania

  • Response rates for organizations

  • Organization Participants providing (partial) 2011 reports:Bioversity InternationalDIVERSITASEncyclopedia of Life (EoL)Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT)ETI BioinformaticsICLEI - Local Governments for SustainabilityIntegrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN)International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPIE)International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)International Long Term Ecological Research (ILTER)NatureServeNordic Genetic Resource Centre (NordGEN)Society for the Management of Electronic Biodiversity Data (SMEBD)Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC)

    Response rates for organizations

  • Organization Participants not providing 2011 reports:Response rates for organizations

  • National NodesOrigin and development status of GBIFs national NodesBarriers to the development of national NodesWork areas covered by national NodesRegional ActivitiesTrainingOutreach and CommunicationSection 1: Engagement

  • Origin of national GBIF networks

  • Origin of national GBIF networks

  • Development of national Nodes

  • Development of national Nodes

  • Participant Report 2009-2011, N=25 Countries and Economies providing reports over 3 yearsTrend in Nodes' development

  • Budget for national Nodes

  • Budget for national Nodes

  • Staffing of national Nodes

  • Staffing of national Nodes n indicates the number of Nodes from each region that replied to the question

  • Sustainability of national Nodes

  • These three barriers have consistently been reported by national Nodes as the top three most significant barriers in 2009, 2010 and 2011

  • National data portals

  • National data portals

  • Use of national data portals

  • Collectively the lists maintained by 41 country Participants include an estimated total of 3,058 institutions and 12,283 peopleNational networks

  • National networks n indicates the number of Nodes from each region that replied to the question

  • Collectively a total of 1442 data holding institutions were reported as being involved in the national Nodes of the 39 country Participants that answered this question

  • Providing information services

  • Providing information services

  • Regional activities national Nodes

  • Regional activities national Nodes

  • Regional activities - organizations

  • National Nodes providing training

  • National Nodes providing training

  • 4 organization Participants organized 7 training events in 2011, through which a total of 64 people were trained on GBIF related activities1 of these training events benefitted from the train-the-trainers approachOrganizations providing training

  • Only 5 country Participants had submitted digital training materials to be included in the Online Resource CentreNational Nodes developing training materials

  • Organizations developing training materials

  • National Nodes participating in GBIF training

  • National Nodes participating in GBIF training

  • Trend in training participationParticipant Report 2009-2011, N=24 Countries and Economies providing reports over 3 years

  • Organizations participating in GBIF training

  • National Nodes involved in outreach

  • Organizations involved in outreach

  • Collectively 30 country Participants reported that they circulate GBits to a combined total of 7517 peopleCommunication: GBIFs newsletterIn addition, 2 organization Participants reported that they circulate GBits to a combined total of 1010 people

  • n indicates the number of Nodes from each region that replied to the questionCommunication: GBIFs newsletter

  • Priorities for Informatics InfrastructureNational Nodes prioritiesOrganizations prioritiesSection 2: Informatics Infrastructure

  • 25 country Participants provided responses over the three years. Their top priorities each year were consistently: Tools to customize and deploy data portals Tools for harvesting and indexing datasets from your community of data providers Tools for documenting and sharing metadata

    Informatics priorities 2009-11

  • Discovery and metadataDigitization and mobilizationNames services (ECAT)Data useSection 3: Biodiversity Science: Content and Use

  • National Nodes metadata policies

  • National Nodes metadata policies

  • National Nodes metadata catalogues

  • National Nodes metadata catalogues

  • N=29 Countries and Economies providing reports over 3 yearsMetadata catalogues 2009-11

  • 2011 Participant Report, N=58 Countries and EconomiesData mobilization strategies

  • Data mobilization strategies

  • Data mobilization by organizations

  • Data mobilization by organizations

  • Countries promoting data publishing

  • Organizations promoting data publishing

  • National Nodes improving data quality

  • National Nodes improving data quality

  • Actions to improve data quality

  • Organizations improving data quality

  • Actions to improve data quality

  • Checklist publishing by National Nodes

  • Checklist publishing by national Nodes

  • Support for checklist publishing

  • National Nodes data use projects

  • National Nodes data use projects

  • Trend in involvement in data useParticipant Report 2009-2011, N=22 Countries and Economies providing reports over 3 years

  • Organizations data use projects

  • Scientific publications national Nodes

  • Scientific publications national Nodes

  • Scientific publications - organizations

  • Value of GBIF mediated data national Nodes

  • Value of GBIF mediated data - organizations

  • Strategic partnershipsParticipant use of the GBIF 2011 Work Programme

    Section 4: Strategic Partnerships and Uptake

  • 2011 Participant Report, N=46 Organization ParticipantsStrategic Partnerships

  • Use of GBIF Work Programme national Nodes

  • Top three useful services for national NodesN=26 Countries and Economies providing reports over 3 years

    2009201020111stInformatics infrastructure provided by GBIFGBIF technical recommendations, documents and guidelinesGBIF Data Portal (http://data.gbif.org)2ndGBIF Communications Portal (http://www.gbif.org)GBIF meetings (regional, global)Guidance and assistance from the GBIF Secretariat Staff3rdGBIF Data Portal (http://data.gbif.org)Guidance and assistance from the GBIF Secretariat StaffExchange of experience and know-how with other Participant Nodes at GBIF meetings

  • Use of GBIF Work Programme - organizations

  • Three main problems identifiedValue of the Participant Reporting System to GBIFs ParticipantsLessons learntConclusions

    Section 5: Evaluating the Participant Reporting System

  • Trend in response ratesProblem 1: Low response rates, incomplete reports, patchy dataGBIF Participant Report 2009-2011

  • Feedback on PRS scope and systemProblem 2: Too many questions, but still not enough detail overallThe report is useful and relevant, but it is too longI believe the report is not sufficiently detailed to figure out why at the participant level progress is not as high as it should be.Problem 3: Using questionnaire software for reporting purposesThe report could provide more summary information about my NODE extracted from the GBIF data portal and other GBIF information systems.A way of improving the system could be to reuse the information from previous reports

  • Value of the Participant Reporting System to country Participants

  • Value of the Participant Reporting System to organization Participants

  • PRS lessons learntGBIF receives information from Participants through various streams that need to be brought together in an automated way

  • PRS lessons learntParticipant needs and priorities benefit from discussion in order to better understand the requirements and way forward

    Through regional meetings, the NSG, and focal Nodes groups, develop recommendations and feasible approaches in consensus between the regions

  • ConclusionsThe GBIFS will not run the Participant Reporting System in the same way for 2012

    GBIF is focusing on improving those network status metrics which could be made available through country and regional pages to be developed in the new Portal in an automated way

    The Nodes Steering Group (NSG) is now a functional standing committee providing rich recommendations through regional reports and input on Nodes priorities to the GBIF Work Programme

    The GBIF Secretariat proposes to work with the NSG to devise a new set of metrics to be assessed through regional reporting to complement information available through the portal

    *Trends have been included when a sufficient set of Participants have provided responses to the question over the three years.******