SlideShare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
SlideShare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.
Successfully reported this slideshow.
Activate your 14 day free trial to unlock unlimited reading.
Results of a survey of NatureServe Network member programs to assess the housing, funding, staffing capacity, guiding statutes, unique assets, and critical challenges faced by individual programs with the goal of strengthening the network and leveraging network assets.
Results of a survey of NatureServe Network member programs to assess the housing, funding, staffing capacity, guiding statutes, unique assets, and critical challenges faced by individual programs with the goal of strengthening the network and leveraging network assets.
1.
Powered by
NatureServe
Network Member Program Survey
January 2016
NatureServe Leadership Training Attendees
A survey designed to assess the housing,
funding, staffing capacity, guiding
statutes, unique assets, and critical
challenges faced by individual programs
with the goal of strengthening the
network and leveraging network assets.
6.
Directly Involved with
Land Acquisition or
Management?
Yes = 28 (36%)
No = 42 (54%)
7.
Number of
Full Time Staff
Network Summary Statistics
Mean = 11.3
Median = 7
Range = 0 - 58
6 programs have no full time staff
15 programs have only 1-4 full time staff
Total of 791 full time staff and 240 part time staff
8.
Number of
Full Time Staff
Network Summary Statistics
Mean = 11.3
Median = 7
Range = 0 - 58
6 programs have no full time staff
15 programs have only 1-4 full time staff
Total of 791 full time staff and 240 part time staff
9.
• 57 of 78 programs responded to some extent
• Mean annual funding for 54 programs = $1,296,214
• Median annual funding for 54 = $712,500
• Range in annual funding (N = 54) = $4,000 to $9,500,000
• Total annual funding for 54 programs = $69,995,594
10.
Percentages
State/
Provincial
funding for
core
functions
Federal
funding for
core
functions
Private
funding for
core
functions
Federal,
state, or
private
funding for
projects
NatureServe
(FESTF, MJD,
or other)
Fees
charged for
individual
data
requests
Subscrip-
tions for
data
renewed
at
intervals
Other
N 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
Mean 47.6 12.6 3.6 25.1 2.4 0.9 1.7 6.2
Median 47.5 0.5 0 11 0 0 0 0
Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maximum 100 90 100 96 99 12 32 100
Dollars
N 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
Mean $392,267 $178,320 $31,261 $409,027 $6,419 $10,449 $14,071 $171,069
Median $237,500 $4,330 $0 $98,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Minimum $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Maximum $1,893,009 $2,850,000 $811,290 $2,379,784 $90,000 $133,800 $203,000 $4,719,448
Total $21,182,419 $9,629,277 $1,688,090 $22,087,446 $346,610 $564,219 $759,819 $9,237,714
16.
Percentage of Programs Reporting the Following as Funders
N = 66
17.
Regular
Partner/Stakeholder
Meetings?
Yes = 19 (24%)
No = 50 (64%)
Programs with Regular Partner Meetings
Number of Partner
Attendees
Colorado Natural Heritage Program 140
Montana Natural Heritage Program 35
Natural Heritage New Mexico 25
Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre 20
Minnesota NH and Nongame Research Program 15
Idaho Natural Heritage Program 12
Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 10
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program 5
New York Natural Heritage Program 4
Rhode Island Natural History Survey 4
Connecticut Natural Diversity Database 3
Yukon Conservation Data Centre 2
Northwest Territory Conservation Data Center 1
Tennessee Division of Natural Areas 1
Manitoba Conservation Data Centre ?
18.
Percentage of U.S. and Canadian Programs Reporting the Following as Stakeholders
N = 60
19.
Percentage of Programs with Position Filled (Yes)
52.
Produce
Animal Models
Yes = 25 (32%)
No = 45 (58%)
53.
Manage Community
Element Occurrences
Yes = 47 (60%)
No = 23 (30%)
54.
Manage Wetland
Mapping Information
Yes = 21 (27%)
No = 49 (63%)
55.
Manage Riparian
Mapping Information
Yes = 9 (12%)
No = 61 (78%)
56.
Manage Land Cover
Mapping Information
Yes = 24 (31%)
No = 46 (59%)
57.
Manage Land
Management Information
Yes = 36 (46%)
No = 34 (44%)
58.
Manage Species
Information for Field Guide
Yes = 29 (37%)
No = 41 (53%)
59.
Manage Information on
Conservation Sites
Yes = 37 (48%)
No = 33 (42%)
60.
Interest in Predictive
Distribution Modeling?
Yes, currently involved = 36 (46%)
Yes, not currently involved = 27 (35%)
No = 5 (6%)
61.
Interest in Regional
Cross Border Displays
of Information
Yes, currently involved = 22 (28%)
Yes, not currently involved = 39 (50%)
No = 7 (9%)
62.
Percent of Element Ranks Reviewed in Last 5 Years
N Mean Median
Plant Elements 57 50 50
Animal Elements 54 51 38
Community Elements 53 25 1
Characterization of Backlog in Processing EOs
Number of Programs
Backlog in
Processing
Plant
Elements
Animal
Elements
Community
Elements
0-10 9 8 17
11-100 9 5 13
101-1000 20 16 10
1001-10000 13 13 4
>10000 1 7 0
Total N 52 49 44
63.
Percentage of Programs with Web Delivery (Yes)
64.
Web-based
Basic Program
Information
Yes = 64 (82%)
No = 6 (8%)
74.
Web-based
Land Cover Mapping
Yes = 15 (19%)
No = 55 (71%)
75.
Web-based
Program Reports
Yes = 42 (54%)
No = 28 (36%)
76.
Web-based
Delivery of other
Spatial Data
Yes = 28 (36%)
No = 42 (54%)
77.
Program’s Unique Assets
• Staff Expertise (taxonomic & technical)
• Staff Experience (taxonomic & technical)
• Staff Dedication
• Collaborations/partnerships
• Botanical Expertise
• We have the data that no one else has
• Fish and Game then involvement with SWAPs
• University/Library then viewed as neutral
non-regulatory source of information
• General craziness!
78.
Program’s Greatest Needs
• Funding for core data processing
• Filling staff vacancies
• Web delivery of data / Web Programmer
• Address data backlogs with technical
expertise and more staff time
• Nonvascular plant and invertebrate animal
expertise
• Younger staff
79.
Cross walking Greatest Assets & Needs
• NatureServe funding campaign
• Share code for data processing
• Share code for website development
• Share web programming expertise/staffing
• Share nonvascular plant expertise/staffing
• Share invertebrate expertise staffing
• Provide webinars on unique assets/products
80.
Suggestions for Improving Survey
• What are top two strengths and top two weaknesses of the
NatureServe Network of Programs?
• Number of Plant Species, Animal Species, and Communities in
database, number of each that are of State/Provincial
Conservation Concern, and number of observations and
element occurrences for each
• Is program primary or sole source of plant, animal, or
community information in jurisdiction?
• Examples of collaboration with NatureServe or other programs
• Years of experience of staff…longevity/aging
• Does program map reference/exemplary natural communities?
• Does program map rare community occurrences?
• Comment fields for all questions
81.
Notes of Interest
• Utah’s funding declined from $426,000 to
$173,200 per year in the last 5 years
• North Carolina’s funding declined from $1.5
million to $675,000 in 2015/2016
• Rhode Island, Venezuela, and a few others
question there involvement in the network
82.
Recommendations
1. Refine the survey and follow up on certain topics
like funding, programmatic needs, species tracked
2. Link program needs to Network funding campaign
3. Make this survey a repeating 5 year survey with
automated report generation…or add some
questions to the health status survey…show
results spatially regardless
4. Post results in ArcGIS online and downloadable
Excel formats for ready access
83.
Number of Plant
Elements Tracked
Question was misinterpreted by a
variety of respondents!
84.
Number of Animal
Elements Tracked
Question was misinterpreted by a
variety of respondents!
85.
Number of
Community Elements
Tracked
Question was misinterpreted by a
variety of respondents!