Table 1
Frequency of rationale use across the 43 databases.
| RATIONALE | FREQUENCY | PERCENTAGE |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Location sharing increasing threats | 32 | 0.74 |
| 2. Species protection | 29 | 0.67 |
| 3. Exploitation | 27 | 0.63 |
| 4. Abuse or disturbance | 25 | 0.58 |
| 5. Life stage or breeding | 23 | 0.53 |
| 6. Wildlife or environmental crime | 20 | 0.47 |
| 7. Conservation status (without specifying a list) | 19 | 0.44 |
| 8. Habitat or ecosystem protection | 19 | 0.44 |
| 9. Population size or stability, regeneration potential, rarity | 18 | 0.42 |
| 10. Conservation list or protected species list: state, regional, or national | 18 | 0.42 |
| 11. Sensitive species list: non-governmental in-house | 13 | 0.30 |
| 12. Attractiveness or interest to humans | 12 | 0.28 |
| 13. Sensitive species list: state or national | 11 | 0.26 |
| 14. Persecution | 11 | 0.26 |
| 15. Nativity, introduction or reintroduction, problematic or invasive species | 10 | 0.23 |
| 16. Association with sensitive species | 10 | 0.23 |
| 17. Conservation list or protected species list: global | 9 | 0.21 |
| 18. Physical ease of locating, detecting, or accessing | 9 | 0.21 |
| 19. Dormancy, roosting, shelters, or site use | 8 | 0.19 |
| 20. Range expansion or contraction | 8 | 0.19 |
| 21. Distinctiveness, taxonomic status, or uncertainty about species | 8 | 0.19 |
| 22. Harms to humans | 7 | 0.16 |
| 23. Extirpation or extinction | 7 | 0.16 |
| 24. Ease of capture or collection | 7 | 0.16 |
| 25. Disease, pathogen transfer | 7 | 0.16 |
| 26. Restricted range or endemism | 6 | 0.14 |
| 27. Documented harm | 6 | 0.14 |
| 28. Environmental protection | 6 | 0.14 |
| 29. Sensitive species list: non-governmental external | 2 | 0.05 |
| 30. Ecological significance of species | 1 | 0.02 |
| 31. Individual animal welfare | 0 | 0 |
Table 2
Formality of policy related to data restrictions.
| FORMAL POLICY (Y/N) | NUMBER OF DATABASES | PERCENTAGE OF DATABASES |
|---|---|---|
| Formal policy yes | 32 | 74% |
| Formal policy no (informal only) | 11 | 26% |
Table 3
Level of documentation provided for data restrictions.
| DOCUMENTATION LEVEL | NUMBER OF DATABASES | PERCENTAGE OF DATABASES |
|---|---|---|
| Database-level rationales only | 37 | 86% |
| Species-level rationales | 6 | 14% |
Figure 1
Rationales cited by database size.
Table 4
Variation in mean rationales cited and database size by subgroup.
| SUBGROUP | MEAN RATIONALES CITED | MEAN DATABASE SIZE BY RANK ORDER (1 SMALLEST, 43 LARGEST) |
|---|---|---|
| Database type | ||
| Biodiversity data aggregator (n = 13) | 13.85 | 29 |
| Participatory science platform (n = 30) | 6.9 | 18.97 |
| Host institution type | ||
| Government science agency (n = 7) | 14.43 | 25.29 |
| Nonprofit (n = 19) | 8.21 | 22.74 |
| Hybrid or other (n = 17) | 7.65 | 19.82 |
| Taxonomic scope | ||
| All taxa (n = 24) | 10.83 | 26.54 |
| Birds (n = 8) | 9.25 | 24.62 |
| Reptiles and amphibians (n = 4) | 8.25 | 10.25 |
| Flora (n = 2) | 3.5 | 16 |
| Arthropods (n = 4) | 3 | 7.75 |
| Policy type | ||
| Formal policy (n = 32) | 11.25 | 24.84 |
| Informal policy (n = 11) | 2.45 | 13.73 |
| Documentation level | ||
| Species-level rationales (n = 6) | 22.67 | 34.67 |
| Database-level rationales (n = 37) | 6.78 | 19.95 |
| List creation | ||
| Created internal sensitive species list (n = 21) | 14.48 | 30.9 |
| No evidence of list creation (n = 22) | 3.77 | 13.5 |