By Deja Perkins, Dillon Mahmoudi, Erica Henry, and Caren Cooper

A ring-billed gull, often observed but overlooked in favor of other species, walks along an urban beach. A representation of the often overlooked people and places, despite the importance of their role to science and society. Photo by Deja Perkins

This Plain Language Summary is published in advance of the paper discussed. Please check back soon for a link to the full paper.

When thinking about eBird and iNaturalist data, we typically focus on where the data are and what we can learn about topics like migration patterns, invasive species presence, overwintering habitat use, and more, but rarely do we think about where data aren’t and why. What qualities characterize areas that are over-sampled compared to areas that are under-sampled? People have voluntarily reported millions of observations to eBird and iNaturalist from locations across the United States. However, people aren’t distributed evenly across the country, and neither are their observations. GPS locations attached to each reported observation reveal where people go to observe wildlife.  By summarizing the number of eBird checklists and iNaturalist observations in US census tracts, we uncovered patterns of missing data across urban and rural areas, aligning with patterns of increasing racial diversity and decreasing economic power. While people of all races, ethnicities, and income levels observe wildlife, urban neighborhoods with diverse racial, ethnic, and income groups have fewer observations and recorded data. The legacy of historical practices like redlining and segregation shapes where people live today, often in racially and economically uniform neighborhoods surrounded by people of similar social status. This legacy also impacts environmental quality, nature access, and even data quantity. Rural landscapes, on the other hand, are much larger, and it’s where income has a larger influence on where nature observations occur. Are diverse nature observers traveling to higher-income neighborhoods with higher habitat quality and more unique species to watch and report nature? Or do they feel excluded and not report at all? Regardless of the reasoning, the resulting uneven geographies of participation leave a gap of undone science, creating significant challenges for what’s possible in ornithology and biodiversity research, management, education, and learning.