What was built Two wildlife distribution maps integrating camera trap records and scat observations for bobcat and puma across 520 square miles of Marin County terrain, plus a regional tracking pattern map across the North Bay.
Who it was for A Felidae Conservation Fund field research team working to identify activity clusters, habitat corridors, and monitoring coverage gaps.
Why it mattered The spatial layer makes a critical distinction visible: whether absence of detections reflects a monitoring gap or genuine absence of animals — a distinction that determines conservation planning decisions.

The Challenge

Field biologists had years of camera trap records across 520 square miles of Marin County terrain. Muir Woods, Mount Tamalpais, Tennessee Valley, Rodeo Valley — sites spread across coastal and mountainous landscape, with observations accumulating since 2012. The data existed. The spatial picture didn't.

These two maps were built to give the research team that picture. The first plotted camera trap locations and scat observations for bobcat and puma across the full study area — showing where monitoring had happened and where animals had been detected. The second mapped regional tracking patterns across the North Bay, visualizing spatial distribution of wildlife activity.

The value wasn't sophisticated analysis. It was spatial context that the team didn't have before: where observations clustered, where movement corridors likely ran between habitat patches, where monitoring coverage had gaps that might explain the absence of detections rather than the absence of animals.

The value in ecological GIS work is often less about sophisticated analysis and more about making existing monitoring data spatially legible. That spatial context — where clusters form, where corridors likely connect habitat patches, where absence of detections reflects a monitoring gap rather than absence of animals — is what makes field data actionable for conservation planning.

This analysis provided spatial insight into wildlife movement patterns and monitoring coverage across a large regional study area.

"The data had been sitting in spreadsheets for years. The maps turned it into something the team could actually see — where the animals were, where the gaps were, where to look next."

Process

  1. 1
    Research Reviewed monitoring data structure; identified camera trap locations, scat observations, and tracking data spanning 2012–2018.
  2. 2
    Data Prep Organized spatial point features; verified geographic coordinates against known habitat areas; structured attribute data for both map outputs.
  3. 3
    GIS Work Mapped approximately 100 camera trap locations and scat observations; designed symbology distinguishing species and detection type; produced regional tracking map for North Bay.
  4. 4
    Output 2 maps reviewed with research team; received positive feedback; supported internal spatial interpretation of monitoring results.
Principle 02
The map is for a person making a decision

Whether the audience is a conservation biologist or a policymaker, the question is the same: what spatial information does this person not have, and what decision could they make differently if they had it? That question drives every design choice.