Habitat maps are interpreted products, usually with some amount of interpolation/extrapolation based on a combination of data. So a polygon in a habitat map can’t be relied upon to tell you definitively what the habitat type is at any location, and therefore any spatial overlay with species observations wouldn’t be a reliable way to describe the species that coincide with particular habitats or vice versa. So make sure you’re careful about the phrasing around “What habitats does species X occur in” and “What species occur in habitat X”. It would be more of a case of “What habitats have been mapped where species X occurs?” and “What species occur where habitat X has been mapped?”
In fact, the answer to the questions “What habitats does species X occur in” and “What species occur in habitat X” is more reliably found by consulting the official habitat definitions (e.g. for UK marine habitats it would the Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland).
Could be that we use the Habitat Index raw data to develop some sort concordance score or posterior probability?
Otherwise we could also consider the ability to use buffer and get a sample for each observation?
Could be that we use the Habitat Index raw data to develop some sort concordance score or posterior probability?
Otherwise we could also consider the ability to use buffer and get a sample for each observation?