Figures
Citation: Buschke F, Patterson D, Cresswell BJ, Gros-Dubois N, Lloyd TJ, Gomersall L, et al. (2026) Ambiguous data licences undermine global ecosystem mapping efforts. PLOS Ecosyst 1(1): e0000017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pesy.0000017
Editor: Emilio Miguel Bruna, University of Florida, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Received: January 22, 2026; Accepted: March 11, 2026; Published: September 8, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Buschke et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: Funding by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), Fondation Hoffmann, the European Commission, the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
A quarter of the way into the 21st century, we still lack a comprehensive, authoritative, and scientifically-sound map of the world’s ecosystems. Despite advances in satellite imagery and automated classification algorithms, ecosystem mapping remains resistant to top-down global approaches. Local expertise remains fundamental to develop, or at least validate, ecosystem maps [1,2]. Local input can stem from scientists or local communities and take the form of field surveys of species composition, annotations of point-based records of ecosystem classes, or manual refinements of historical maps.
Creating a modern map of the world’s ecosystems should build on existing local information, not to mention decades of preceding investment. However, integrating essential local knowledge is hindered when it is unclear whether this information may be used to map, manage, and conserve ecosystems. Ecosystem maps, like all other creative works, remain under exclusive copyright as a default unless clearly stated otherwise [3]. This means that even when providers make their ecosystem data downloadable from public websites, users should assume that these data are protected and cannot be reused without prior permission. In this context, permission takes the form of an explicit statement of a data licence or the direct authorisation by the data provider.
As the team working on the Global Ecosystems Atlas (https://globalecosystemsatlas.org/) [4], we urge the custodians of ecosystem datasets to develop explicit licences that consider the variety of ways users may repurpose these data. The Global Ecosystems Atlas is a cross-sector collaborative initiative to compile the first comprehensive, standardised, and open resource on the extent of the world’s ecosystems. The Ecosystems Atlas brings together existing ecosystem information from trusted sources (e.g., National authorities, nongovernmental organisations, or the peer-reviewed scientific literature) and fills remaining informational gaps using ecosystem classification models developed using annotated point-based training data evaluated by experts. Outputs from the Global Ecosystems Atlas are made available under open licences consistent with donor requirements and the guidance policy by its convening organisation, the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) [5].
As of January 2026, our team has compiled a catalogue of 343 candidate ecosystem datasets [6] that could be combined—with full attribution to data owners—to develop a global map of ecosystems. However, almost one-third (29.7%) of the datasets do not provide users with explicit guidance on how the data may be reused (Fig 1). A further 20.4% can be reused under custom licences (e.g., legal terms and conditions tailored to a specific dataset), which can be difficult for nonexperts to navigate. Custom licenses vary from institutional policies by national governments or large research institutions, to personalised modifications of standard licenses. Data owners can even provide different licence conditions to different end-users (e.g., data owners might allow free use to individuals and small businesses but restrict use to large corporations that exceed a certain size). Custom licences introduce legal overheads to ensure that licence conditions are met. Moreover, when custom licences include conditions that any derivative works must be shared under the same licence conditions (i.e., a legal technique known as “copyleft”), it severely limits their uptake in derivative works.
(The trademarked Creative Commons logos and icons are depicted according to the reuse policy: https://creativecommons.org/policies/).
Less than half of the datasets (47.8%) in the Global Ecosystems Atlas Data Catalogue are shared under widely applied Creative Commons licences, which are standardised public licences that establish how works may be reused [7]. Of these datasets shared under Creative Commons licences, the majority (39.6%) require attribution to the data owner (CC-BY), while a minority (4%) restrict reuse to noncommercial purposes (CC-BY-NC) (Fig 1).
Even if only a small minority of datasets are restricted to noncommercial use, these restrictions can have significant ramifications for synthesised global products. Derived products made up of multiple datasets must be licensed according to the most stringent conditions of its constituent parts. For example, including a single dataset with a ‘noncommercial’ (NC) condition would restrict any commercial uses for the whole composite product, hampering its uptake for commercial applications like corporate biodiversity reporting [8]. Similarly, adding a ‘no-derivatives’ (ND) condition would prohibit works from being combined with any other datasets, while ‘share-alike’ (SA) conditions would constrain the licence of derived products and introduce conflicts with other datasets that do not share the exact same licence.
It is tempting to advocate for all ecosystem data to be made publicly available under nonrestrictive open access licences, as others have done before [9]. However, such blanket recommendations overlook the many valid reasons data owners may have to control how their data are reused or acknowledged. Biodiversity data can be seen as social infrastructure [10] and respecting data sovereignty is essential for equitable and effective conservation outcomes [11,12], especially in marginalised groups [13,14]. Similarly, selling commercial access to biodiversity information is one way to recoup the costs of producing and maintaining that information [15], but this is only possible when the commercial rights of data owners are protected.
In our experience discussing licensing arrangements with data owners—including scientists, government officials, and NGO researchers—we found that licensing issues are often an afterthought. Stakeholders may have received little guidance on how to select and apply licences to support the intended use of their data. Against this backdrop, we offer three specific recommendations to the custodians of ecosystem data (Box 1), favouring open licenses that allow for unrestricted reuse with or without attribution (compatible with Creative Commons licenses CC0 and CC-BY, respectively).
Initiatives like the Global Ecosystems Atlas are not meant to replace existing information on the world’s ecosystems. Instead, they aim to build on what already exists and add value by bringing datasets together. This is only possible when we recognise the effort and investment behind existing ecosystem maps [16]. Clear data licences are an essential, though often overlooked, requirement for creating bottom-up global ecosystem maps.
Box 1. Three recommendations for licensing ecosystem data
- (1) License your ecosystem data explicitly. Nearly one-third of ecosystem datasets considered by the Global Ecosystems Atlas contained no specific licence information. This means that these datasets are protected despite being freely accessible through the internet. Licensing ecosystem data can be as straightforward as selecting an appropriate licence that matches the preferred reuse restriction (a user-friendly tool is available for Creative Commons licences: https://creativecommons.org/chooser/) and copying the licence information alongside their ecosystem data (i.e., the website through which data are accessed, or as a ReadMe or metadata file included with GIS data).
- (2) Use standardised data licences whenever possible. One out of every five ecosystem datasets considered by the Global Ecosystems Atlas has a custom data licence. Although custom licences can be tailored specifically to the institutional needs of the data owner, they often only impose the same restrictions as standard Creative Commons licences (e.g., attribution, noncommercial use, no derivatives, or share-alike conditions). This means that data users must interpret long licence descriptors—often written in a single language using inaccessible legal jargon—to comply with the usage conditions. By contrast, Creative Commons licences are standardised and translated into many languages, offering a practical benefit over custom licences.
- (3) When restricting reuse with licences, put mechanisms in place to legally navigate these restrictions. Data owners may have valid reasons to restrict the reuse of their data, but they should consider how users could legally overcome these restrictions. For example, if data owners choose to make their data freely available for noncommercial use only, they can still provide ways for users to sub-licence the data for commercial purposes. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) provides a prominent example of how this can be done [17], by including a ‘public’ version for noncommercial use, and a second ‘licensed’ version accessible through the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) for commercial purposes.
References
- 1. Meyer H, Pebesma E. Machine learning-based global maps of ecological variables and the challenge of assessing them. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):2208. pmid:35459230
- 2. Young AR, Davies HF, Ayre ML, Brekelmans A, Bryan BA, Elith J, et al. Applying the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology to classify, describe, and map ecosystems based on regional data and Indigenous knowledge. Conserv Biol. 2025;39(6):e70099. pmid:40641149
- 3. Culina A, Baglioni M, Crowther TW, Visser ME, Woutersen-Windhouwer S, Manghi P. Navigating the unfolding open data landscape in ecology and evolution. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2(3):420–6. pmid:29453350
- 4. Murray N, Buschke F, Cresswell B, Gros-Dubois N, Keith D, Lloyd T. The global ecosystems atlas: comprehensive and systematic mapping of Earth’s ecosystems. EcoEvoRxiv. 2026.
- 5. GEO Data Working Group - Law and Policy Subgroup. Data licensing guidance. Geneva, Switzerland: Group on Earth Observations Secretariat; 2023.
- 6. Gros-Dubois N, Lloyd T, Cresswell B, Harmer T, Lynn A, Buschke F. Global ecosystems atlas data catalogue. Zenodo. 2026.
- 7. Carroll MW. Sharing research data and intellectual property law: a primer. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(8):e1002235. pmid:26313685
- 8. Miller BL, Lombardo S, Rosenthal A, O’Shea T, Luers A, Lavista‐Ferres JM, et al. Corporate biodiversity reporting can be scaled with AI and Earth observation—but will miss the point without guidance from conservation scientists. Conserv Lett. 2025;18(5).
- 9. Roche DG, O’Dea RE, Kerr KA, Rytwinski T, Schuster R, Nguyen VM, et al. Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science. Conserv Biol. 2022;36(3):e13835. pmid:34476839
- 10. Chapman M, Goldstein BR, Schell CJ, Brashares JS, Carter NH, Ellis-Soto D, et al. Biodiversity monitoring for a just planetary future. Science. 2024;383(6678):34–6. pmid:38175872
- 11. Trisos CH, Auerbach J, Katti M. Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5(9):1205–12. pmid:34031567
- 12. Buschke FT, Capitani C, Sow EH, Khaemba Y, Kaplin BA, Skowno A, et al. Make global biodiversity information useful to national decision-makers. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023;7(12):1953–6. pmid:37803167
- 13. Tattersall E, Cardinal‐McTeague W, Myers‐Smith I, Jenkins DA, Burton AC. Affirming Indigenous data sovereignty in collaborative wildlife conservation in the era of open data. People Nat. 2025;7(11):2659–77.
- 14. Sterner B, Elliott S. How data governance principles influence participation in biodiversity science. Sci Cult. 2023;33(3):366–91.
- 15. Juffe-Bignoli D, Brooks TM, Butchart SHM, Jenkins RB, Boe K, Hoffmann M, et al. Assessing the cost of global biodiversity and conservation knowledge. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160640. pmid:27529491
- 16. Pritchard R, Sauls LA, Oldekop JA, Kiwango WA, Brockington D. Data justice and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol. 2022;36(5):e13919. pmid:35435288
- 17. Bingham HC, Juffe Bignoli D, Lewis E, MacSharry B, Burgess ND, Visconti P, et al. Sixty years of tracking conservation progress using the World Database on Protected Areas. Nat Ecol Evol. 2019;3(5):737–43. pmid:30988492