Corresponding author: Luc Willemse (
Academic editor:
Results are presented of a study investigating solutions and procedures to incorporate private natural history collections into the international collections data infrastructure. Results are based on pilot projects carried out in three European countries aimed at approaches on how to best motivate and equip citizen collectors for digitisation:
1) In Estonia, the approach was to outline tools for registering, digitising and publishing private collection data in the biodiversity data management system PlutoF.
2) In Finland, the functionality of FinBIF, a portal offering a popular Notebook Service for citizens to store observations has been expanded to include collection specimens related to a field gathering event.
3) In the Netherlands private collection owners were approached directly and asked to start digitising their collection using dedicated software, either by themselves or with the help of volunteers who were recruited specifically for this task.
In addition to management tools, pilots also looked at motivation, persons undertaking the work, scope, planning, specific knowledge or skills required and the platform for online publication. Future ownership, legality of specimens residing in private collections and the use of unique identifiers are underexposed aspects effecting digitisation. Besides streamlining the overall process of digitising private collections and dealing with local, national or international challenges, developing a communication strategy is crucial in order to effectively distribute information and keep private collection owners aware of ongoing developments.
Besides collection owners other stakeholders were identified and for each of them a roadmap is outlined aimed at further streamlining the data from private collections into the international infrastructure.
In conclusion recommendations are presented based on challenges encountered during this task that are considered important to really make significant progress towards the overall accessibility of data stored in privately held natural history collections.
Digitisation is a concept that, depending on the person, context or situation, may have different meanings (see also p. 3 in
In the current study the term “digitisation” refers to the electronic registration of data and information from individual specimens or samples, possibly but not necessarily including imaging, validation, georeferencing, etc.
The current study carried out as part of the
The current study was therefore aimed at those collections that are privately owned, usually kept in a residential building and managed and cared for by a private person who does not receive any funding for this. Private collections on average are relatively small. Results from a survey carried out across Europe in 2018 as part of the
65% of the respondents of the survey said that they manage their collection data fully or partly electronically. Over 90% are interested in sharing their data some way, preferably through a public website, and by listing metadata of their collection in some kind of public register. Most private collection owners (55%) indicated they need tools, such as a dataset template or a web based digitisation platform, followed by guidelines (36%) and physical equipment (27%). The report concludes that future efforts to help private collection owners to digitise their collections should focus on providing appropriate online tools and information on how to get started with digitisation. In particular, there is a large interest in a new European-wide website where private collection owners can register and subsequently share collection-level data.
Specimens held in private natural history collections form an essential, but often neglected part of the specimens held in natural history collections worldwide. When engaging in regional, national or international initiatives aimed at increasing the accessibility of biodiversity data, it is paramount to include private collections as much and as often as possible. Compared to larger collections in national history institutions, private collections are numerous, anonymous, small and diverse in all aspects of collection management. This poses a unique set of challenges to take private collections into account.
Collection owners in general have neither biodiversity informatics knowledge nor the resources to digitise and share their collection data. In this study pilots were carried out to look into aspects like strategies and the role of stakeholders as well as into management systems that can be used to digitise privately owned collections. The results, experiences and lessons learned from these pilots are described in this document.
Taking into account regional and cultural differences across Europe, the pilot projects not only served to gain insights into management systems that are available and practical obstacles that have to be tackled but also into factors beyond the direct influence of collection owners that interfere with digitising or sharing data.
Results from this study provide a basis for future actions to be taken aimed at improving digitisation of private collections and the inclusion of their data in the international infrastructure. First, in chapter 3, results of two approaches used in Estonia and the Netherlands to get private collection owners involved in digitising their collections are discussed. Partly based on the results obtained in Estonia and the Netherlands, chapter 4 essentially defines motivation, factors affecting it, steps to optimise motivation and the stakeholders involved to do so. Out of a multitude of factors affecting motivation, the (choice of a) management tool for digitising collection data is an important one. Chapter 5 combines management tools in four categories - three of which were used in pilots within the current study - and describes the pros and cons for each category. The next chapter introduces seven stakeholder groups involved in or having an interest in the digitisation of privately held collections. Chapter 7 provides roadmaps to be taken by stakeholders describing in practical terms what actions are recommended to facilitate digitisation of private collections. Before the concluding remarks a separate chapter presents recommendations that require attention in order to start implementing measures to further facilitate the digitisation of private collection owners.
Results of this study were written as a formal deliverable (
Taking into account regional and cultural differences across Europe, two pilots were carried out in Estonia and the Netherlands to gain some insight into approaches toward collection owners to get them involved into digitising and/or sharing collection data. The two approaches used in the pilots and their results are described in this chapter. In Finland, the third pilot focussed purely on adjusting an online web portal to support digitisation by citizen collectors. A brief overview and discussion of data management systems including the systems used for the pilots in Finland, Estonia and the Netherlands is presented separately in Chapter 5.
The main goal was to reach out to the private collection owners, present them the idea of collection digitisation along with the different strategies and means of digitisation. As a mediator, ideally, a collection owners association was to be approached. After the first contact with this association, testing would start where collection owners would digitise their collections through the PlutoF workbench and publish the data to GBIF. This process would be documented and analysed and finally presented as a best practice case for a workflow of private collection digitisation and publishing of collection data and metadata to GBIF.
UTARTU collaborated with the Estonian Lepidopterists’ Society (ELS) to promote the concept of private collection digitisation and data sharing. The contract was signed between UTARTU and ELS for organising a public workshop and publishing an article in the ELS yearly magazine for promoting digitisation and giving guidelines to ELS members and the wider public. The Workshop was held and the article published in winter 2019 with twelve ELS members and other public participants.
Private collection owners who showed interest in the digitisation of their collections were assisted with their digitisation efforts. To this end, a specialist assistant was contracted by UTARTU. For some collection owners, access to the digital photography facilities in UTARTU were enabled to image the collection specimens.
Early 2017, a questionnaire about the composition of collections and their digitisation status was sent to members of the Dutch Entomological Society (
Starting early 2019 nine collection owners joined the pilot. Out of the nine collection owners five indicated they preferred to do the digitisation themselves whereas four collection owners indicated they lacked the time but agreed to let volunteers do the work. For the latter group three collections would be digitised at an institute (instead of the home address) while in one instance the collection owner agreed to let a volunteer come and do the work at his home address. For collection owners doing the work themselves, all required items (manual, template file for data entry, registration codes) were prepared and handed out during an introductory session. Collection owners were then very much left alone, having been given contact details in case of questions.
Volunteers with no or hardly any experience in entomology were recruited using social media and were given a short instruction session. Each volunteer, as a rule, only worked for a single day per week. Altogether seven volunteers were deployed, one working at the home address of a collection owner and six volunteers working at the institute. For the latter group using 1-2 workplaces, collections were brought to the institute, digitised and returned to the owner.
Table
In addition to the digitisation efforts, a one day meeting was organised for members of the Dutch Entomological Society. Among other reasons, this was organised to inform participants about the pilot that had taken place, the lessons learned, remaining questions, future plans and feedback. During the day a hands-on training on specimen digitisation was included and several aspects (imaging, online portals, management tools) demonstrated. Around 25 participants attended the meeting.
The diversity of private collections, their owners and the cultural aspects linked to private collections across Europe is enormous. In this respect the two approaches to get private collection owners involved in digitisation carried out in Estonia and the Netherlands only scraped the surface of a multitude of possible approaches. This diversity makes a comparison between approaches in terms of effectiveness difficult. An approach that works very well for amateur entomologists with private collections in Estonia or the Netherlands may not work at all in other countries. Advocating an approach that works very well for most entomological collections across Europe may turn out to be a complete failure when applied to malacological collections.
During the pilot in Estonia, a workflow was set up and tested for managing and publishing the digitised collection data, using PlutoF biodiversity data platform, GBIF IPT and GBIF API. The workflow proved to be suitable for intended use as a tool for private collection digitisation. However, the willingness of private collection owners to share the data was quite low and only a small number of them actually published the data. There are no clear explanations for this, but as indicated during meetings with the lepidopterologists society, collectors consider digitisation a time consuming activity which is not seen as something they are interested in in the first place.
The approach used in the Netherlands including nine participants showed that conviction of the importance of digitisation and having been given the tools to start digitising do not always provide enough impetus to get and keep collection owners going in the medium and long-term. Lack of time or rather making choices on how to spend your time hampers the start and/or continuation of digitisation related activities. Within the Dutch cultural setting the use of volunteers provided a workable solution to overcome time constraints. Along the way various remarks were made or questions raised about specific aspects of digitisation which were not taken into account at the start but have been incorporated in this publication. Such questions and comments very much helped in realising that making digitisation of private collections a success can only be brought about by a strong commitment and a joint effort from all stakeholders involved.
There are many factors that influence the motivation of a private collection owner toward digitising his or her collection. Motivation is defined here both in the positive sense as awareness and conviction about the importance of digitisation and publishing data and in the negative sense as factors that cause reservation or doubt toward various aspects of digitisation which may hamper or prevent collection owners from starting or continuing digitisation. Taking this into account, a communication strategy needs to be developed which allows each and every collection owner to be approached with a tailored message. Chapter 4 in the
“
Regarding the first two bullet points, actions to be taken pertain to organising a range of messages and channels of communication toward private collection owners aimed at increasing awareness and encouragement. This, in essence, consists of adapting a similar kind of message in a multitude of ways to fit the audience it is aimed at and finding an optimal form or setting to spread it.
The third bullet point pertains to private collection owners who, rather than needing to be convinced about the importance of digitising their collections, are hesitant to start due to lack of knowledge, experience or time to do it or still have questions regarding specific aspects related to digitising them. The answers and activities required to deal with this involve various stakeholders and need to be handled at a local, national or international scale. Part of the lack of information and challenges interfering with collection digitisation were tackled as part of the pilots carried out in this study, while others only became evident along the way.
Various aspects are briefly described below, indicating the approach required and stakeholders involved. The approaches described here (in random order) are partly repeated in Chapter 7 which presents separate roadmaps for each of the stakeholders.
Private Collection Owner: user of the protocol. Research Community (e.g. CETAF): initiate protocol at an international level. Collection Holding Institutions: initiate protocol at a regional or national level. Non-Governmental Organisations: communication about protocol. Public Administrations: stress importance; stimulate development.
Private Collection Owner: user of the protocol. Collection Holding Institutions: prepare protocol. Non-Governmental Organisations: communication about protocol (workshop; meetings). Public Administrations: together with collection holding institutes formalise the acceptance of collections regardless of species and provenance, accepting the fact that private collection owners may not always have strictly adhered to laws and regulations when collecting.
ownership of digital data/images the portal timing of online publication access policy privacy sensitive data synchronisation of digital (online) and physical information
Having adequate answers to all these questions will help collection owners to have a better understanding of the whole process, which will help to take away some of the reservations they may still have.
Private Collection Owner: in need of clarity and answers Non-Governmental Organisations: organise communication with other stakeholders Collection Holding Institutions: practical issues like synchronisation and timing of publication Research Community: look into international issues Data aggregators: provide answers and guidelines on ownership, access policy, privacy and sensitive data
Private Collection Owner: in need of information Non-Governmental Organisations: communication about websites with information Collection Holding Institutions, Data Aggregators and/or publishers and Research Community should join forces to prepare an international overview of available solutions that is easy to read and interpret for laymen.
Private Collection Owner: prepared to allow volunteers to digitise the collection Collection Holding Institution: prepared to allocate staff time and workspace to organise volunteers to digitise private collections Non-Governmental Organisations: in consultation with collection holding institutes, communicate about the possibility to let volunteers digitise collections Research Community: examine the possibility to internationally tackle this issue Citizen Science Associations: in consultation with collection holding institutes and non-governmental organisations investigate whether or not they can play a role providing manpower for digitisation
Private Collection Owner: beneficiary of manuals and protocols. Collection Holding Institutes, Research Community and Data Aggregators and/or Publishers together look into the best approach to tackle this in order to standardise this as much as possible at an international level taking into account the multilingual challenge. Non-Governmental Organisations: keep members informed about developments and results.
Research Community (e.g. CETAF) should take the lead. Citizen Science Associations: clearly in the interest of their members
An important choice for private collection owners to make when starting to digitise natural history collections is which data management tool to use. Considerations for making a choice are diverse and depend of course partially on personal preferences. Important aspects to be included, apart from obvious matters like costs, support or user friendliness, are:
generic or dedicated flexibility export formats e.g. Darwin Core use of thesauri (standardized, controlled vocabularies) built in tools (label printing; maps) learning curve linking media
The amount of background information on data management tools is huge. An overview is available at, amongst other sources,
In quite a number of countries, websites have been built that allow capturing observation data with (or without) the possibility to attach images and usually using input of specialists to validate identifications. Examples of such websites are:
The
It was decided to enhance the system so that preserved specimens could be better marked and counted and to have a unique ID which can be printed onto the specimen labels. Marking the specimens which have been digitised with unique identifiers is critical for preventing them to be digitised again in future, creating duplicate records. Data entry in the Notebook Service happens through customised forms or spreadsheet file uploads. Until now, the only generic form to enter data has been the ”Field Trip Report” form which is organised around an observation event (gathering) (Fig.
While this form can be used and easily enhanced to enter data of preserved specimens and print labels for them, it works well only when the observations and specimens belong to one gathering event. In the current design there is no direct relation (one-to-many) between an occurrence record and the specimens gathered as evidence of that occurrence. Instead, there will be several records of the same species without any clear link between them. They will only be grouped together under the gathering event. For instance, if 100 individuals of an insect taxon are observed and only 3 of them collected as preserved specimens, four records need to be created with individual counts 97, 1, 1, and 1, respectively. This is not very elegant, but may work in the case of whole individuals. However, if the specimens represent parts of the same individual (for instance branches of a tree), a concrete link between the records would be necessary.
A specification of work was written in November 2018. Design of the new functionalities is underway by the FinBIF development team. It has been concluded that there are at least two different use cases for the digitisation of specimens: 1) saving a few individuals for evidence during an observation event, and 2) digitising a collection by drawers. Each requires a different approach. Currently, only the first case is supported by the FinBIF Notebook Service. Some enhancements have already been made such as label printing, assigning unique IDs for specimens, and allowing field numbers (collector-given ID) to be saved.
Online data management platforms have been developed with a much wider range of uses in mind, collection management being only one of them. A good example of an online data management platform is
In Estonia, there is little information on private collections which are publicly available. On a very basic level (taxonomic scope, collectors name), some Estonian private collection owners have registered their collections at Global Registry of Scientific Collections (
The University of Tartu Natural History Museum and the Botanical Garden (UTNHM) have developed a biodiversity data management platform called
The pilot project aimed at:
reaching out to private collectors (who own natural history collections), presenting the concept of digitisation and data sharing to collection owners, establishing the collaboration between research institution (museum) and private collectors for digitisation attempts, utilising biodiversity data management tools for private collection registration and digitisation, and sharing private collection data through GBIF portal.
1) In order to maintain focused action, we targeted mainly entomology collection owners but initially reached out to a wider community of naturalists. An official invitation to participate in the pilot project was sent to specific social media groups such as
2) On the UT Natural History Museum website a
3) A curator of zoological collections of UTNHM was taking the responsibility of introducing the private collectors who were to digitise their specimens to the photographic facilities of the museum. However, there was only one collector who approached the museum for imaging his collections.
4) Before introducing private collectors to the PlutoF platform, the workflow for digitised collection data management was tested, and some modifications and adjustments were made by the UTNHM IT team. As the data publishing was also an important component of the pilot, the GBIF publishing functionality of PlutoF was tested as well. A specialist was subcontracted with the assignment to instruct the collection owners who were involved in the pilot project. Registration of collections and publishing the data was intended on two levels:
Collectors were asked to submit their collection metadata via Google Form with following data fields:
email address name of collection owner the name of the collection (e.g. "Private herbarium of John Smith") the type of collection (different types of collections should be registered separately) number of specimens in the collection (estimate) country of location owner’s address owner’s email (if the contact email differs) owner’s phone number linked webpages (LinkedIn or similar) collecting region (Europe, Asia, etc.) or countries (Estonia, Russia, etc.) for most of the specimens which groups of organisms are present in the collection? (As detailed as possible or desired: " indication of species list in separate file (to be sent by email) period of collection of specimens in case of paleontological collection, geological period number of storage units in collection (boxes, jars, etc.) web address of collection (in case the data is already shared online) storage type of specimens (pinned, herbaria, alcohol etc) indication of intent to digitise at specimen level in the future, so that additional information can be sent agreement to publish data
For
Using the PlutoF platform in the collection digitisation process does not limit it to data publishing only. PlutoF can be used also for collection data management, label publishing, biodiversity data visualisation and analysis.
4) After the metadata submission, the collections were registered on the metadata level either via GBIF IPT or the PlutoF
Five collection owners (
Sharing private collection data for research in the biodiversity domain is quite rare and technical facilities for this are lacking or not adequate. The PlutoF platform opens up a solution for digitising and publishing digitised data to GBIF. A data management platform can help to keep track of collections. When managing collection data through a platform on the fly as the new specimens come in, the digitisation process is done simultaneously with data management. Only imaging of specimens needs a separate workflow. Data publishing in a meaningful way can increase the value of a private collection. Simple data sharing gives an opportunity to open collections for research. In Estonia, reaching out to private collection owners remains a challenge.
Generalistic software is software that can be used to store biodiversity data in a structured way but has
In order to keep the threshold as low and the learning curve as flat as possible - i.e. the data management tool not being reason to not to start digitising - a Google Spreadsheet in a predefined format was used in the pilot in the Netherlands. Altogether, 5 collection owners volunteered to start digitising their collection themselves, including the use of QR codes for registration numbers, and using a Google spreadsheet with an accompanying manual (Fig.
The strengths of generalistic software is that these are readily available, as a rule do not have a steep learning curve, and are flexible when it comes to structuring data. Weaknesses of generalistic software is that carrying out specific tasks like printing a label or producing a map is not possible or requires a lot of detailed knowledge. Uploading data is another issue. Because generic software normally are used without a thesaurus providing standardised lookup tables, data quality may as well be an issue. Furthermore, there is no built-in support for generating unique identifiers to attach to the digitised specimens.
Dedicated software refers to management systems specifically built to support ongoing activities in natural history collections. Examples are for instance widely used programs that are installed on a PC or local network like
During the current study this type of software was not specifically tested.
Besides storing data in a structured way and possibly linking media (images; sound recordings) to species or specimens, dedicated software usually has built in tools aimed to support collection related activities, e.g. to print labels. Although they are better adjusted to user requirements, they are as a rule less flexible and the learning curve may be steep. Options to upload data to the internet may be absent or may be included.
To a certain degree it is fair to state that in case of private natural history collections the stakeholders are the same as those for smaller or larger collection holding institutes in general. The data from private collections are comparable to data of institutes and museums and influence research and policy making in exactly the same way, just on a different scale. However, there are also certain aspects that are unique for private collections like competition between collectors for obtaining rare species or the economic value of specimens. When considering digitisation of privately owned biodiversity collections and looking for ways to improve it, the following stakeholders were identified:
private collection owners citizen science associations non-governmental organisations collection holding institutions research community public administrations data aggregators and/or publishers industry
Each of these stakeholder groups can contribute significantly towards improving the overall success rate of digitisation of private collections. Mutual recognition as involved parties as well as awareness of the respective interests are key factors, both to optimise strategies and to streamline activities and workflows. Here we adopted the
Private collection owners are at the heart of their collection digitisation. They are at the same time customer and supplier.
The citizen science associations are networks of institutions and/or individuals who utilise citizen science methods, crowd-sourcing or are representing citizen scientists.
Non-governmental organisations represent research communities linked to - or whose daily activities center on - specific topics or tasks (e.g. Estonian Naturalist’s Society, Estonian Ornithological Society or the
Collection-holding institutions comprise all the smaller and larger regional and national museums, institutes, universities, etc. holding a natural history collection.
The research community can be considered both as the collection of all the individual researchers whose research is linked to data residing in natural history collections, and as the fora in which researchers are organised to represent their common interest.
Public administration in this context includes environmental agencies, ministries, etc. that act in public interests, regulating nature protection, land use, etc.
Data aggregators integrate data originating from different data sources into a coherent data pool. They also act as a data publisher, thus making data publicly accessible. One of the well known data aggregators and publishers in earth and life sciences is the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (
Data originating from natural history collections can be used for various purposes in industries. Examples can be found in creative industries, tourism, the food and health industries, agriculture or forestry. Another small but important industry is the digitisation industry that provides equipment, software, and services for digitisation!
This chapter describes in practical terms what is expected or required from stakeholders in order to start, proceed or facilitate digitisation of privately owned collections.
Regardless of concrete steps to be taken to enhance or start digitisation, a private collection owner can at any time:
contemplate and ideally decide as early as possible about the person, museum or institute that he or she wishes to donate the collection to in the future, ensure that the collection has an acceptable curation standard i.e. specimen/samples mounted or prepared, labeled, identified and stored in adequate containers, if applicable, retrospectively look up coordinates for sampling sites visited in the past for which coordinates on specimen labels are still missing and add these either in the field books, in a separate electronic file or directly in records for specimens that have been digitised.
Looking at collection owners with private collections and considering the aspect of ‘registration/digitisation’ of their collection, roughly three scenarios can be distinguished:
not yet started (0% registered or digitised), partly or completely registered in some form of paper archive, electronically digitised either partly or completely with or without the use of unique identifiers attached to the specimens/samples.
Below, the three scenarios are briefly introduced and although their starting situation is very different, the roadmap of actions is by and large identical.
Assuming a collection owner is convinced of the benefits of electronically digitising his or her collection but has not yet started, the most appropriate approach for digitising a collection depends on a number of factors:
the scope (what will be digitised, in which order?), the who (who will do the actual work?), the what (what is needed in terms of hardware, skills, knowledge, etc.?), the how (data-entry via software or online; online publication; keep data up-to-date), the when (the time factor; how long will it take; how much time is invested?).
Deciding on the best approach does not yet include the actual work, but simply sets the scene for digitising a collection taking into account all of the above variables and possibilities in such a way that it:
matches the collection owners long-term objective in preserving and managing his/her collection, perfectly fits the type of collection (taxonomic group; preservation method), is within his or her capabilities, fits the collection owner’s beliefs and opinion on data sharing, is an approach that in terms of timing, protocols, collaborators, etc. the collection owner is comfortable with.
Of course a decision about the approach to start digitisation is entirely up to the collection owner and nobody else. However, other stakeholders can play an important role guiding the private collection owners toward a decision. When it comes to a roadmap, the first and most important decision to take by collection owners is to include others in their decision taking process and to not do it all by themselves. Depending on country, type of collection or cultural aspects these “others” could well be other private collectors, citizen science associations, collection holding institutions in the physical world or simply online information assuming this is available and easily findable. It is up to other stakeholders to not only make sure collection owners are well informed at all times about procedures and protocols be they local, national or international (communication strategy), but also to have those very procedures and protocols available.
To this very day, there are still collection owners who have registered their collection not electronically but partly or entirely in the old fashioned way using an indexed card system. Depending on the exact nature of the system and the information it holds, it can or cannot be used in the digitisation process. If, for whatever reason, it is not practical to use the card index the entire collection will have to be digitised from scratch. If the card index system can be used, one could consider a three step protocol:
scan all cards, copy data from the scans into a structured file, and apply unique registration codes to each collection specimen/sample and add the code to the relevant record in the file.
If the collection owner is prepared to copy data from the cards into a structured file himself, the first step can be skipped. The advantage of scanning a card index system is that the subsequent registration can be carried out by anyone, anywhere. A roadmap to be taken by a collection owner with a paper archive is the same as for those who still have to start as described in the previous chapter.
Quite a number of collection owners have already started digitising their collection. Results from the European survey carried out in 2018 showed that roughly two-thirds of the collection owners already had some information about their collection digitally available. These collection owners already decided on an approach for digitising their collection. When looking at specimen/sample digitisation the following groups can be roughly distinguished:
partly digitised (1-99%) each specimen with unique identifiers specimens without unique identifiers completely digitised (100%) each specimen with unique identifiers specimens without unique identifiers
From the collection owner’s point of view there is probably little to no reason for changing their approach once digitisation has started. However, every collection owner should be made aware that a private collection sooner or later ends up in a regional or national collection-holding institute. In order to optimise the transition from a private collection to a community owned institution, it is important that collection owners take this change of ownership into account when digitising their collection. The more the protocols used in private collections deviate from those used in regional or national institutes, the more time and effort will be required in the future to integrate the collection and corresponding data. When it comes to a roadmap for this group of collection owners it is important they decide which institute will receive their collection and contact it, not only to discuss the future transition of the collection but also, and more importantly, its digitisation.
One aim of citizen science associations in this context is to generate interest and enthusiasm in the study of specific nature related themes or groups. Citizen science associations represent the interests of their members and as such can play a key role in connecting private collection owners to other stakeholders, in particular collection-holding institutes. When it comes to the digitisation of private collections citizen science associations can facilitate this process by spreading awareness and information among its members and beyond through mailings, workshops or meetings. In particular, a roadmap for citizen science associations should include:
searching for and making available relevant information as well as being familiar with (inter-)national programs linked to digitisation, informing members, looking for ways to have an up-to-date inventory of collections kept by members, if feasible looking for means to stimulate digitisation of private collections, contacting collection holding institutes to discuss common strategies.
Like citizen science associations, non-governmental organisations are organised around expertise and studies of specific groups of organisms. Contrary to citizen science associations, non-governmental organisations (rather than representing the citizens’ interests and facilitating them) use data gathered by citizens, whether observation or collection based. It is in the interest of non-governmental organisations to ensure that citizen scientists keep publishing data online and that these data are accurate and verifiable. A roadmap for non-governmental organisations regarding the digitisation and online publication of private collections could comprise:
together with citizen associations and collection holding institutes create and keep up to date an overview of specialists, national or international, that can be approached, to stress the importance of digitisation and properly identified specimens/samples at meetings, workshops, etc. attended by private collection owners, to contact collection holding institutes to discuss common strategies, for instance to include (the digitisation of) private collections in atlas projects.
For regional and national institutes, digitisation of private collections is or will become part of their core business. This statement is based on the fact that most if not all private collections one day will be offered as endowments to publicly owned collections. If private collections at the moment of transition are not digitised, they will add to the total backlog of digitisation of the institute receiving the collection. More importantly, information may become lost if private collections are digitised at a far later stage when the original owner is no longer available or capable to provide additional information related to the collection. In order to guarantee the highest possible data quality (accuracy, precision and completeness), and ensuring that datasets are standardized in such a way that they can be migrated easily, institutions should actively promote the digitisation of private collections at the earliest possible opportunity. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that collection-holding institutes facilitate and participate in activities linked to the digitisation of private collections - which in the future will become their collections. A roadmap for collection holding institutes regarding the digitisation and online publication of private collections could comprise:
contacting citizen science associations and non-governmental organisations to discuss common strategies, like a common communication strategy, preparing an up-to-date list of private collections that could be donated in the future with the help of citizen science associations, actively approaching private collection owners to discuss their plans regarding bestowal and linked to that the state and or plans regarding digitisation, preparing policies and protocols required to streamline various aspects linked to digitisation of private collections, for instance the use of unique identifiers, deciding on resources to be made available for digitisation of private collections; if necessary this could lead to efforts to find funding.
The biodiversity research community at large has a vested interest in online data. Whether data is derived from specimens kept in larger museums or small private collections is much less important than the certainty of high data quality and reliable identifications. The already mentioned survey carried out in the
to create an online access portal with information about individual private collections, where (inter-)nationally feasible, to look for opportunities to organise stakeholders into setting up a joint approach for aspects related to the digitisation of private collections, to develop a communication strategy together with other stakeholders.
Public administration plays a very important role not only in making policies, regulating laws and cash flows but also in raising general awareness about nature and nature conservation. When it comes to a roadmap linked to the digitisation and online publication of private collections, public administrations could tackle:
as law makers they can play an important role together with the collection holding institutes in tackling specific obstacles like an approach for illegally collected specimens or protected species residing in private collections which are donated to a publicly funded institute. overall, by acknowledging the importance of private collections as part of natural history heritage they can stimulate the digitisation process.
Online access to collection data is provided in a myriad of ways by institutes as well as (inter-)national initiatives in Europe and the world. Each of these portals differ in the metadata they publish, the source of data (observations and/or collections), accessibility and possibilities to add or change data and technical solutions to accomplish this, quality checks, etc. An additional complicating factor is the rights management when private collections, become incorporated in larger regional or national collections. What happens to online data when a physical collection changes address and ownership? Considering the temporary nature of private collections in combinations with the many portals available to choose from, working toward an internationally standardised solution for publishing data from private collections becomes quite a challenge. A pragmatic approach would be to start looking at national levels for solutions to make (meta)data from private collections accessible online. Nevertheless, one should strive for streamlining national initiatives across countries, to anticipate an international solution. When it comes to a roadmap linked to the digitisation and online publication of private collections, data aggregators and online publishers could focus their attention on:
streamlining efforts to standardise the online publication at a national level, notwithstanding national efforts, looking into ways to streamline the online publication of collection data at an international level, together with other stakeholders putting effort into optimising messages and channels of communication directed toward all stakeholders involved but particularly the private collection owners regarding the online publication of collection data, develop protocols with other stakeholders aimed at keeping virtual data and information synchronised with data and information in the physical collection.
Except for companies directly supplying products and services linked to digitisation, industries are not directly involved in digitising or publishing data. Overall, they use data that are directly or indirectly linked to collections. Industry here has a very wide range from food industry to creative industries with no concrete common interests or responsibilities. Therefore despite their vested interests, a roadmap with concrete combined actions has not been drawn up.
Digitisation of private collections and sharing the data, first and foremost requires motivation and willingness from the respective collection owners. Current pilots carried out in Estonia, Finland and the Netherlands showed that there are also factors beyond the (direct) influence of collection owners, that affect the rate of success of digitisation and sharing collection related data and information. The most notable challenges that arose as part of pilot projects and recommendations to start tackling these are (in random order):
Stakeholders involved from the user community (citizen science associations; collection-holding institutes) should look into ways and methods that enable us to have a complete overview of private collections, including those whose owner is not a member of any citizen association. Secondly, stakeholders from the user community should convene with parties or organisations able to provide technical solutions (
when digisiting, tooling should provide assistance in managing the collection using the digitised information, digitisation should help in exchanging information or trading specimens with other private collectors, and digitisation should provide information back to the collector how the data has been useful to do scientific research.
The current pilot did not provide sufficient time to make a complete overview. Some more work is required to obtain a full list and present this is a document/paper.
Across museums all over the world, volunteers have been deployed. Sometimes experiences, lessons learned, etc. have been summarised in reports for instance in the an international consortium of stakeholders, for instance
9)
Developing an approach to stimulate digitisation of private collections in Europe contains quite a few challenges. Although research institutions generally share the same attitude towards data sharing, for which digitisation is the first step, private collection owners may differ in that regard. Their motivation and practices can vary remarkably and tackling digitisation of private collections can therefore be a challenge. The first and maybe biggest challenge is obtaining a complete list of people who privately own a natural history collection which is far less simple than it may seem. Private collections vary in all possible characteristics like size, subject or level of management and likewise their owners differ in their attitude toward the importance of digitising collection data and publishing data online. Cultural differences across European countries as well as differences in legislation regarding for instance collecting animals or plants make developing a harmonised approach that fits all situations difficult. The approach has to offer guidance regarding the multitude of tools that are available to store collection data either offline or directly online. The pilots carried out in this study helped to get a better understanding of the complexity behind the digitisation of private collections. Stakeholders should cooperate much more intensively to come up with suggestions to support and further streamline this activity across Europe. Additionally, a communication strategy is needed to ensure that private collection owners can have access to the latest information regarding all aspects of collection digitisation.
Upper part of the “Field Trip Report” form on the Notebook Service of the FinBIF portal (www.laji.fi), where details of the gathering event can be entered.
Lower part of the “Field Trip Report” form on www.laji.fi, where observations and their details can be entered.
The PlutoF taxon occurrence management module.
The PlutoF module for GBIF publishing.
Google Sheets approach.
Progress in number of specimens digitised for each collection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1000 | no | 09/05/2019 | 0 |
|
|
1600 | no | 18/01/2019 | 1 |
|
|
25000 | yes | 30/01/2019 | 3200 |
|
|
10000 | yes* | 14/01/2019 | 800 |
|
Microlepidoptera | 6000 | no | 18/04/2019 | 0 |
|
|
10000 | no | 17/01/2019 | 215 |
|
15000 | yes | 22/02/2019 | 65 | |
|
|
17500 | yes | 15/02/2019 | 5000 |
|
|
17000 | no | 17/01/2019 | 3240 |
* A volunteer digitised at the home of the collection owner.