A database on the distribution of butterflies (Lepidoptera) in northern Belgium (Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region)

Abstract

In this data paper, we describe two datasets derived from two sources, which collectively represent the most complete overview of butterflies in Flanders and the Brussels Capital Region (northern Belgium). The first dataset (further referred to as the INBO dataset – http://doi.org/10.15468/njgbmh) contains 761,660 records of 70 species and is compiled by the (INBO)Research Institute for Nature and Forest in cooperation with the Butterfly working group of Natuurpunt (Vlinderwerkgroep). It is derived from the database Vlinderdatabank at the INBO, which consists of (historical) collection and literature data (1830-2001), for which all butterfly specimens in institutional and available personal collections were digitized and all entomological and other relevant publications were checked for butterfly distribution data. It also contains observations and monitoring data for the period 1991-2014. The latter type were collected by a (small) butterfly monitoring network where butterflies were recorded using a standardized protocol. The second dataset (further referred to as the Natuurpunt dataset – http://doi.org/10.15468/ezfbee) contains 612,934 records of 63 species and is derived from the database http://waarnemingen.be, hosted at the nature conservation NGO Natuurpunt in collaboration with Stichting Natuurinformatie. This dataset contains butterfly observations by volunteers (citizen scientists), mainly since 2008. Together, these datasets currently contain a total of 1,374,594 records, which are georeferenced using the centroid of their respective 5 × 5 km² (UTM)Universal Transverse Mercator grid cell. Both datasets are published as open data and are available through the (GBIF)Global Biodiversity Information Facility .

Barriers and Opportunities for Implementation of Outcome-Based Spread Payments for High-Cost, One-Shot Curative Therapies

“…Multiple authors emphasized that multi-stakeholder agreement between payers and developers on financial terms of the MEA is crucial to enable the use of spread payments ( Brennan and Wilson, 2014 ; Edlin et al, 2014 ; Philipson, 2014 ; Basu, 2015 ; Drummond, 2015 ; Touchot and Flume, 2015 ; Jorgensen and Kefalas, 2015 ; Kleinke and McGee, 2015 ; Carr and Bradshaw, 2016 ; Montazerhodjat et al, 2016 ; Carlson et al, 2017 ; Marsden et al, 2017 ; Jorgensen and Kefalas, 2017 ; Yeung et al, 2017 ; Value in Health, 2017 ; Carr et al, 2018 ; Faulkner et al, 2018 ; Hanna et al, 2018 ; Hampson et al, 2018 ; Lidonnici et al, 2018 ; Sachs et al, 2018 ; Senior, 2018 ; Tuffaha and Scuffham, 2018 ; Salzman et al, 2018 ; Schaffer et al, 2018 ; AMCP, 2019 ; Drummond et al, 2019 ; Jönsson et al, 2019 ; FoCUS, 2019a ; FoCUS, 2019b ; Infante et al, 2019 ; Maes et al, 2019 ; Towse and Fenwick, 2019 ). However, many uncertainties on the ideal duration of spread payments, payment amount per installment and payment linkage to outcomes remain.…”

“…However, many uncertainties on the ideal duration of spread payments, payment amount per installment and payment linkage to outcomes remain. Several publications argue to spread payments over the duration of benefit or effect of the therapy ( Edlin et al, 2014 ; Hettle et al, 2017 ; Jorgensen and Kefalas, 2017 ; Jönsson et al, 2019 ; Maes et al, 2019 ) with a time limit on the payment period (2–5 years) ( Faulkner et al, 2018 ; Hanna et al, 2018 ; Maes et al, 2019 ), while others argue for continued payments as long as the patient is alive ( Schaffer et al, 2018 ; Towse and Fenwick, 2019 ). Although several recommendations exist, no article yet describes a formal method to determine the optimal duration of such spread payments.…”

“…Although several recommendations exist, no article yet describes a formal method to determine the optimal duration of such spread payments. Furthermore, the CAR-T mock appraisal performed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the ICER Policy Summit indicated that payers require clarity on the potential price-increasing effect of spreading payments due to the interest rate required by the manufacturer on deferred payments ( Hettle et al, 2017 ; Hampson et al, 2018 ; Maes et al, 2019 ).…”

Rewilding: Pitfalls and Opportunities for Moths and Butterflies

“…About a third of these butterfly species have currently declining populations on a European scale, and 9 % are threatened (van Swaay et al 2010). In some European regions these figures are far higher; in Flanders, for example, 19 out of 67 resident butterfly species (28 %) went extinct since the start of the twentieth century, whilst 25 species (37 %) are currently threatened (Maes et al 2013). Such high proportions can be explained by cumulative effects of environmental pressures due to a long history of economic development (Dullinger et al 2013).…”

OdoBD: An online database for the dragonflies and damselflies of Bangladesh

“…However, in response to growing needs, online invertebrate databases are gradually a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 increasing in number as more insect data are being digitized in online repositories such as FreshWaterBiodiversity (http://data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/), Global Biodiversity Information Facility (http://www.gbif.org/), OdonataCentral [4], and the Odonate Phenotypic Database [5]. Along with these online databases containing worldwide information, regional databases like Butterflies of India (https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/), Butterflies of Belgium [6], and Odonata of India (https://www.indianodonata.org) are currently emerging, providing more detailed insights on the extant species with their spatial and temporal information.…”