Show information of "Life MICA Biodiversity Surveys" per area

[niconoe]

See mail Emma Feb 28th.

[niconoe]

Got clarifications by email:

• This is the dataset: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/cd1c5bf1-0d7a-447a-875a-919f22e325bb. It's currently metadata-only, but data will be also published soon.
• Data publishers have a more complete dataset (contains records that cannot be pushed to GBIF because of missing data). As a first step, I suggest using the GBIF-published one so we keep a consistent data flow. If it appears it's not good enough, we'll revisit and evaluate the effort (specific import procedure)

[niconoe]

Additional question for @EmmaCartuyvels1: you mention the data could appear in a separate tab... So far, all datasets appear together, but data can be filtered using the "source dataset" selection list. Does your remark mean that this dataset should appear/be treated a bit differently than the others?

[EmmaCartuyvels1]

Additional question for @EmmaCartuyvels1: you mention the data could appear in a separate tab... So far, all datasets appear together, but data can be filtered using the "source dataset" selection list. Does your remark mean that this dataset should appear/be treated a bit differently than the others?

Hi Nico, The data should be treated differently since this data is not about coypu or muskrats but rather birds, damsel- and dragonflies and plants as indicators of local biodiversity

[niconoe]

Thanks a lot @EmmaCartuyvels1, that's very good to know. I understand the problem better and I am a bit more inclined to manually load the data from Caitlin's CSV files since this data is inherently different.

I can already work on the import procedure, in parallel I think we should brainstorm about the most useful way to present this data to the users: a separate tab feels a bit vague. Do you have more detailed ideas already? We might also involve Peter (Desmet) who's great at designing user interfaces at some point.

[EmmaCartuyvels1]

Hi @niconoe , for visualisation I was thinking about some sort of biodiversity index as well, but I would have to discuss this with Caitlin first

[niconoe]

Okay thanks @EmmaCartuyvels1, keep me informed! I can already load the data in the database, it's a necessary but not sufficient step (the data will be invisible to end users). Once you know more about how you want it displayed, we can continue. Also tell me if you need help exploring possibilities!

[niconoe]

Related question: if we want to give users some insight about the biodiversity richness, should we limit ourselves to Cailtin's dataset, or is it better/feasible to download all data from GBIF concerning specific species in specific locations (such as what we plan to do with Muskrat and Coypu occurrences)?

[caitlinemilyblack]

Just a note: I spoke with the NLBIF's data manager earlier this week and he informed me that I can include the complete dataset (including NAs) in GBIF, so I will update it when I am back from vacation on April 4th. As a result, it makes sense to also use the complete dataset that I sent Emma in the dashboard.

[peterdesmet]

Discussed with @EmmaCartuyvels1:

The locations in https://www.gbif.org/dataset/cd1c5bf1-0d7a-447a-875a-919f22e325bb are the MICA areas. These have properties per year. In would be too much to show in a popup per area. Rather, create a separate page per area where these properties are listed in a human readable way.

[niconoe]

Hi @peterdesmet / @EmmaCartuyvels1 : could you give a bit more details / examples (a tiny mockup maybe?) of hat should be visible on the page ? thanks!

[peterdesmet]

You'd have to ask @EmmaCartuyvels1. 😄

I notice that the records in the above mentioned datasets have odd identifiers, that are not publicly accessible: https://hetwaterschapshuis.sharepoint.com/sites/1084/Dashboard/Forms/AllItems.aspx?csf=1&web=1&e=Y5CqNG%2F&cid=672837e7%2D83d8%2D42ed%2D8bba%2D244d58943c2b&RootFolder=%2Fsites%2F1084%2FDashboard%2FNetherlands&FolderCTID=0x0120003F39983DD750B64A9A79D97E7303C9A7/1283

[EmmaCartuyvels1]

Hi Nico,

I think it would look like an additional option on the left hand side, where once you click it it folds out and you can select for which year and which species you would like to see the index (default option "all" for both)

This would be visualized by the colored in project areas, where we can maybe use a green scale, light green for fewer species and darker green for more species. It would be good if you could also click that area and get the exact number of species.

Let's start by making this just about the number of species.

@caitlinemilyblack would there be a Biodiversity Index that we could use here?

[EmmaCartuyvels1]

Hi @niconoe , when zooming in the numbers become a bit unreadable. Also, the areas where no monitoring where done should get another colour.

[niconoe]

Hey @EmmaCartuyvels1, I've made the requested improvements:

• Better counting of species, including "0" in white color when no species according to the selection
• Less visual cluttering on the map, no decimals displayed, counter hidden when zooming out.

Can you have a look at https://mica-uat.inbo.be/?

[EmmaCartuyvels1]

It looks much better, but like I said in the other issues I would work with NA instead of 0. There should also be data from 2022 now, is it possible to include this as well?

[EmmaCartuyvels1]

The numbers appear outside of project areas (fig 1) The numbers change when zooming (fig 1 and 2) There is no number for his project area (fig 3)

[niconoe]

Thanks @EmmaCartuyvels1:

• Sure, I'd like to add the 2022 data, but as far as I can see it's not published yet (at https://www.gbif.org/dataset/cd1c5bf1-0d7a-447a-875a-919f22e325bb)
• NA value: I am not sure I understand the requirements: the metric is currently defined as "number of matching species in the area", so if 0 species match the selection, 0 is returned and shown. Is my logic/approach incorrect?
• All the other display issues: I will investigate!

[EmmaCartuyvels1]

If it's not published yet, it probably won't be in in time, so don't worry about adding it.

Your logic is correct, but the zero seems to imply that there are no species in those areas, while they were simply not monitored, so using NA would be a more correct representation of the surveying.