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 11 / 16 Members who acted as both data providers and data users, as well as those who solely acted as data providers, had significantly more connections compared to those who solely acted as data users. Specifically, these groups had, on average, 2.4 and 1.3 more connections than data users, with both effects being statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Members from the government sector were significantly more connected than those in academia, while NGOs, the private sector, and citizen scientists showed no difference in connectedness compared to academia. Members not grouped into these sectors had significantly more connections, driven by GBIF, which had the most connections (n = 214). Members in Eastern and Southern Europe, and non-OECD countries outside Europe, were less connected on average than those in Western Europe. Member institutions working across realms were significantly better connected than those focusing on terrestrial species or ecosystems, while there was no difference in connectedness among terrestrial, marine, and freshwa- ter realms. Additionally, the number of EU directives associated with a member’s activities was a good predictor of centrality, with each additional directive corresponding to a 0.16 increase in the number connections. Regarding the number of activities in which members participated in EuropaBON and thus influenced the design of Europe’s new biodiversity and ecosys-

tem services monitoring program, those acting as both data user and data provider were involved in significantly more activities than solely data users. Institutions from the academic sector were actively involved in most activities, and the private sector was significantly underrepresented in EuropaBON’s stakeholder events. Members from institutions based in Eastern Europe and countries outside Europe (both non-OECD and OECD) participated in significantly fewer events com- pared to those located in Western Europe. Members whose work focused on the marine realm participated in significantly fewer events compared to those in the terrestrial realm. A positive relationship was observed between the number of EU directives and the number of events in which an organisation participated. Discussion This research highlights the critical importance of fostering an inclusive stakeholder community, both geographically and thematically, for shaping effective European biodiversity policy. While the EuropaBON network demonstrates strong con- nectivity across regions, sectors, and ecological realms, notable gaps persist, particularly in the participation of Eastern European actors and in the engagement of stakeholders from marine and freshwater ecosystems. At the core of the net- work, central institutions such as GBIF play a key role in facilitating data exchange and integration, underscoring the value of well-connected hubs within biodiversity data infrastructures [32]. However, rather than merely reaffirming GBIF’s cen-

trality, this finding points to the need for greater redundancy and decentralisation, ensuring that no single node becomes a critical point of failure. Strengthening regional hubs or sector-specific platforms could help balance this centralisation and improve the resilience of the broader biodiversity knowledge infrastructure. Additionally, the network’s open-access dash- board, which follows the FAIR principles [12], offers significant potential for enhancing collaboration, transparency, and reusability. These findings carry important implications for emerging initiatives, most notably the EU Biodiversity Observa- tion Coordination Centre (EBOCC), which is poised to build on the foundation laid by EuropaBON to advance coordinated biodiversity monitoring across Europe [33]. Inclusiveness and representation in the network Our analysis shows that the EuropaBON members network is generally well connected across geographic regions, sec- tors, and thematic areas. However, there is clear potential to enhance the network’s overall resilience by strengthening links with underrepresented stakeholder groups – particularly those in Eastern European countries and the private sec- tor, as well as actors working in marine and freshwater realms. The consistently low levels of participation from Eastern Europe stand out as a key gap that warrants targeted attention. This could be addressed through more focused outreach, such as organising meetings, conferences, and workshops directly within the region to foster local engagement. Likewise,

closer interaction with the marine and freshwater communities would enrich the network by creating space for knowledge