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 12 / 16 exchange on shared challenges, including data standardisation and funding mechanisms. Currently, institutions focusing on terrestrial ecosystems tend to be more active and better connected, highlighting a disparity that limits the network’s comprehensiveness. Yet this underrepresentation also presents a strategic opportunity: strengthening connections with marine and freshwater stakeholders could significantly broaden the network’s thematic scope. Notably, a large proportion of institutions are classified as “cross-realm,” either because data from multiple members within a single organisation were consolidated or because many institutions genuinely engage across multiple ecosystems [34]. This pattern reflects a broader shift toward interdisciplinary approaches in biodiversity research and practice. Enhancing engagement with cur- rently underrepresented realms will therefore not only fill gaps but also align with the evolving nature of biodiversity work – ultimately making the network more balanced, inclusive, and effective. Role of key institutions and central actors Although our findings demonstrate that the EuropaBON network is generally well connected, there is room to improve links with Eastern Europe and increase collaboration with private companies. The network’s structure is characterized by strong connections between intergovernmental organisations (e.g., GBIF, EEA, Eurostat, JRC), academic institutions

(e.g., universities), and government organisations (e.g., European Commission agencies). Rather than viewing these connections as static features, they should be leveraged strategically, for example, by empowering these central actors to mentor or partner with less connected institutions from underrepresented regions or realms. Among these, GBIF stands out as the most connected node by far, accounting for over 30% of all connections. This highlights GBIF’s central role as a global aggregator of biodiversity data and a longstanding hub for data sharing, standardisation, and integration across countries, institutions, and thematic areas. These findings align with those of Bingham et al. [11], who identified GBIF as the most connected actor in both global and European biodiversity informatics landscapes. Institutions in the academic (e.g., NIVA, ISPRA) and government sectors (e.g., EEA, JRC) are the most active in project-related events such as work- shops, webinars, surveys, and interviews. This level of activity is not unexpected, as these entities often receive dedicated funding for such engagements. We recommend expanding the range of stakeholders involved in the network and sug- gest offering increased support for early-career professionals, who may otherwise lack the resources to participate in key meetings and events. Moreover, many of the most influential and well-connected actors, such as BIODIVERSA + , IPBES, eLTER, and LifeWatch ERIC, are themselves cross-realm or serve coordinating roles across multiple ecosystem types.

These actors play a crucial role in bridging thematic gaps and highlight the value of integrative infrastructures in network development. Implications for biodiversity monitoring and policy Understanding the structure and composition of the stakeholder network is not an end in itself, but a crucial step toward improving its function and impact. By identifying underrepresented regions, sectors, and realms, targeted actions can be taken to diversify participation, strengthen weak connections, and foster more equitable collaboration. A more inclu- sive and better-connected network translates into more robust and representative biodiversity data. This is essential for setting conservation priorities, addressing monitoring gaps, and achieving practical outcomes. For example, engaging underrepresented regions such as Eastern Europe helps fill data gaps and better align national monitoring systems with EU-wide goals. Similarly, increased involvement from marine and freshwater experts will improve ecosystem- specific coverage and policy responsiveness. A well-connected stakeholder network also fosters trust, facilitates knowl- edge exchange, and promotes collaborative ownership of biodiversity initiatives. These factors are important for the long-term sustainability of initiatives like the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and for responding effectively to biodi- versity loss. Looking ahead, the stakeholder network could serve not only as a resource for data mobilisation but also

as a governance and decision-support platform, enabling more inclusive co-design and evaluation of biodiversity policy interventions.