The 100 identified and publicly accessible databases and websites screened for the study were rated according to disaggregation, accessibility and confidence level. A high rating meant that data were available specifically for both pastoralists and rangelands (or their metonyms), that they could be easily searched and accessed, and that they were verified by a third party or a scientific method. A low rating meant that data were not disaggregated and only provided general information on populations or ecosystems, that they were difficult to access, and that there was no visible attempt of verification. In eight cases labelled “no access”, it was not possible to rate one or more of these indicators due to insufficient information, password protection or the website being under construction. In total, 92 databases were screened, 59 of which had no hits for any metonym keywords and were thus labelled “no information”.
From collection: A case of benign neglect - Knowledge gaps about sustainability in pastoralism and rangelands