The EuropaBON Stakeholder Dashboard: A dynamic web application to map Europe’s biodiversity community

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329390 August 13, 2025 10 / 16 Fig 4. Connections between EU projects and key EU infrastructures that members reported to be actively involved in/associated with. The size of the outer bars represents the number of connections each project or infrastructure has with others. The colours facilitate visualisation but do not have any specific meaning. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329390.g004 (34%) were research infrastructures, research networks, or research projects, followed by coordination and/or sup- port networks (19%), and biodiversity tools and technologies (15%). Data repositories (9%), biodiversity observation frameworks (9%), biodiversity monitoring schemes (5%), and intergovernmental organisations/panels (3%), were reported less frequently. The top five most connected EU projects and key infrastructures (in terms of their number of connections) included LifeWatch ERIC (https://lifewatch-eric.openaire.eu), EuropaBON (https://europabon.org), eLTER (https://elter-ri.eu), DiSSCo (https://www.dissco.eu), and Biodiversa+ (https://www.biodiversa.eu) (Fig 4). Stakeholder impact and engagement In the context of this study, stakeholder impact refers to the degree centrality of the institution with which the registered EuropaBON network member is affiliated. Engagement denotes the number of EuropaBON project events/ activities the member participated in. The calculated marginal effects, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals, for the two models – explaining impact and engagement are presented in S3 Fig.