Using expert-elicitation to deliver biodiversity monitoring priorities on a Mediterranean island

The successful adaptation of the framework of Pocock and others [44] in this exercise sup- ports their contention that the framework was replicable and robust for other countries. With respect to the prioritisation of the biodiversity monitoring needs, our results broadly reflected the findings of Pocock and others [44], with both the online and expert-elicitation workshop prioritising standard methodologies, quality assurance, and suitable field sampling methods that are accurate and efficient. Our findings did however deviate in the increased prioritisation of needs relating to national/regional coordination, and the collection of additional environ- mental data, such as climatic conditions and additional data for the marine environment; these were both listed in the top nine biodiversity monitoring needs group in the current study (they were amongst the least important in Pocock and others [44]). The collection of addi- tional environmental data, such as habitat information, can increase the value of records in answering ecological questions [60]. Their increased importance here may in part be due to concern over the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, as the Mediterranean is predicted to be particularly strongly affected through climatic conditions such as drought and high PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 14 / 20

temperatures [61, 62]. The specific reference to collecting data in the marine environment is likely linked to both the lack of data in many taxonomic groups of marine organisms and the lack of available marine environmental data in Cyprus. The Mediterranean Sea is facing multi- ple pressures from climate change, overexploitation of marine resources and invasive alien species [8, 63], and, as such, additional data to monitor and record change is very important for this vulnerable system. Possible uses and next steps for the prioritised list of biodiversity monitoring needs Informing the design of monitoring schemes. Pocock and others [44] recommend using such prioritised lists to look for gaps in existing programmes, and also in the design of new biodiversity monitoring programmes. We found that the most highly prioritised monitoring needs were those related to the development of robust methodologies and in ensuring that suf- ficiently skilled citizens are available to contribute (including being available to record across wide geographic regions). These prioritised needs could be used to help focus existing resources for data collection. For example, supporting the development of standardised meth- odologies would enable structured biological recording [28], thus ensuring consistency in the way records are collected in new schemes. This would also support recognition of the impor- tance of mentoring, training and supporting volunteers in existing, or newly establishing, schemes which could result in increased funding for these activities [57].

Increasing infrastructure capacity. National coordination was also considered to be a top biodiversity monitoring need (Table 3). Although there are many biodiversity datasets within Cyprus, there are gaps in collating, analysing, identifying trends and needs, and com- municating and sharing data. There would be merit in developing guidance on mechanisms for extracting data from a selection of sources (e.g. from studies undertaken for another pur- pose, but that include biodiversity data), how to manage this information (e.g. existence of appropriate software and training to use it), and how to analyse, interpret, and share these among interested parties [13]. Establishing a national hub for the centralised collation, dissemination and analysis of bio- diversity monitoring data could help to deliver the data needed to enable governments to report on environmental change, and help to prioritise suitable monitoring approaches for sites or species that need protecting, or for which monitoring is specifically mandated by law [64]. A national hub holding high quality, verified biological records could also play a role in coordinating and supporting a network of citizen science recorders, a model successfully employed in the UK for over 50 years [64]. Such a national hub was suggested from the online survey by one respondent (S3 File) and could be a valuable tool in delivering knowledge about biodiversity in Cyprus. Developing a GBIF Participant node could help enable the coordina- tion of networks of people and institutions that create, manage and utilise data on biodiversity

across Cyprus. However, there can be mistrust from data users over the quality of the data in large aggregated datasets, such as inconsistent taxonomy, inadequate spatial coverage, or lack of reported protocols [65], which can lead to reduction in the use of the data for scientific stud- ies [66]. Franz and Sterner [66] also argue for greater accountability of the role of these data- bases in making choices that directly underpin the perceived quality of aggregated biodiversity data, such as the creation and maintenance of taxonomic hierarchies that may not reflect the concepts used in local biodiversity communities. Franz and Sterner [66] call for global data hubs to work to develop new technical pathways and social incentives as mechanisms to bridge the current trust gap. PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 15 / 20

Developing cross-taxa networks. “Examples of best practice are identified and shared between schemes and organisations” was not highly scored during the online questionnaire (S1 File). During the expert-elicitation workshop, this biodiversity monitoring need was subse- quently amalgamated with three other needs: “There are suitable field sampling methods that are accurate/efficient”; “There are appropriate analytical/statistical approaches to measure trends from monitoring data”; and “Recorders collect supplementary data (such as characteristics of the habitat, soil or weather)” to give the biodiversity monitoring need “There is standardised methodology and protocols to ensure consistency”. This became one of the top nine biodiversity monitoring needs. Should this need become a higher actual priority on Cyprus, the approach taken by the National Forum for Biological Recording (NFBR) charity in the UK may be relevant. The NFBR works across taxonomic groups to support biological recorders, hosts conferences, and represents their interests in governmental decision-making, through mechanisms such as the State of Nature report [67]. Such a model could enable the Cypriot biological recording community to share ideas and experiences for the maintenance and support of biodiversity monitoring. Conclusion Prioritising biodiversity monitoring needs is becoming increasingly important as we continue to see major declines in biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem function [1]. Through a consensus exercise, a hierarchy of three groups of monitoring needs was created. As well as the

priority list supporting decision-making by providing a snapshot of one consensus developed across a range of biodiversity monitoring stakeholders, we hope that the full list of needs will also assist with the development of robust monitoring programmes simply by providing a checklist of considerations. In this way, organisations and funders can ensure that all relevant monitoring needs have been considered, and that the, inevitably values-based, prioritisation that must take place whenever funds are limited is based on a full, and hopefully transparent, consideration of all available options. Supporting information S1 File. Online survey questionnaire. English version of online survey questionnaire sent to stakeholders working in the field of biodiversity monitoring in Cyprus (in both Greek and English). Results were collected using the online survey platform https://www.onlinesurveys. ac.uk/. (DOCX) S2 File. Unprocessed results from an online survey. Unprocessed results from an online sur- vey sent to stakeholders working in the field of biodiversity monitoring in Cyprus (in both Greek and English). Information that would make individuals identifiable has been removed for the purposes of publication. Each respondent has a unique code generated by the online survey. Respondents were asked if they were able to attend the workshop. They were also asked to select their organisation from a pre-populated list or to select “other” and then specify. Responses that were submitted in Greek were translated by the project partners. Respondents

were then asked to give their top three biodiversity monitoring interests from a pre-populated list with a free text box for additional information. Respondents were then asked to rank biodi- versity monitoring needs given in a pre-populated list that represent the 10 most important gaps or opportunities in biological recording. Next, stakeholders were asked to rank how ade- quately the questionnaire addressed the biological recording gaps in Cyprus. Finally, PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 16 / 20

stakeholders were asked if they wished to be co-authors on the current manuscript. (XLSX) S3 File. Additional stakeholder comments from both an online questionnaire and work- shop. Additional stakeholder comments from both an online questionnaire and workshop involving stakeholders from the field of biodiversity monitoring in Cyprus. Stakeholders were asked to give further features or comments that they considered important and that might have missed out from either the online survey or that came up as part of the discussions. A facilitator summarised the workshop discussion points. This task was undertaken as part of a wider exercise on ranking the biodiversity monitoring needs for Cyprus. �Themes were added post-workshop. (DOCX) Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all the participants who took part in the online questionnaire and workshop. The authors would also like to thank the Akrotiri Environmental Education Centre for hosting the workshop and for their support for our project, Dr Angeliki Martinou, our project partner, for her initiation of the work and role in the workshop, and Professor Helen Roy for her role in facilitating the expert-elicitation process. Author Contributions Conceptualization: J. Peyton, M. Hadjistylli. Data curation: J. Peyton. Formal analysis: J. Peyton, O. L. Pescott. Funding acquisition: J. Peyton, O. L. Pescott. Investigation: O. L. Pescott. Methodology: J. Peyton, O. L. Pescott. Project administration: J. Peyton. Supervision: O. L. Pescott. Validation: O. L. Pescott. Writing – original draft: J. Peyton, O. L. Pescott.

Writing – review & editing: J. Peyton, M. Hadjistylli, I. Tziortzis, E. Erotokritou, M. Deme- triou, Y. Samuel, V. Anastasi, G. Fyttis, L. Hadjioannou, C. Ieronymidou, N. Kassinis, P. Kleitou, D. Kletou, A. Mandoulaki, N. Michailidis, A. Papatheodoulou, G. Payiattas, D. Sparrow, R. Sparrow, K. Turvey, E. Tzirkalli, A. I. Varnava, O. L. Pescott. References 1. Dı´az S, Settele J, Brondı´zio E, Hien N, M G, Agard J, et al. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES, 2019 6 May 2019. Report No. 2. Erotokritou E, Vogiatzakis IN. Landscape linkages for the distribution of the endangered Hierophis cypriensis in Cyprus. Ecologia mediterranea: Revue internationale d’e´cologie me´diterrane´enne = Inter- national Journal of Mediterranean Ecology. 2019; 45(1):31–44. PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 17 / 20

3. Sala OE, Chapin FStuart III, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, et al. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science. 2000; 287(5459):1770–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 PMID: 10710299 4. Coll M, Piroddi C, Steenbeek J, Kaschner K, Lasram FBR, Aguzzi J, et al. The biodiversity of the Medi- terranean Sea: estimates, patterns, and threats. PloS one. 2010; 5(8):e11842. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0011842 PMID: 20689844 5. Hall CM. Tourism and biodiversity: more significant than climate change? Journal of Heritage Tourism. 2010; 5(4):253–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2010.517843 6. Sa´ nchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KAG. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol Conserv. 2019; 232:8–27. https://doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020 7. Nieto A, Roberts SP, Kemp J, Rasmont P, Kuhlmann M, Criado MG, et al. European red list of bees. 2017. 8. Tsikliras AC, Dinouli A, Tsiros V-Z, Tsalkou E. The Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries at Risk from Overexploitation. PLOS ONE. 2015; 10(3):e0121188. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121188 PMID: 25793975 9. McNeely JA. The sinking ark: pollution and the worldwide loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity & Conserva- tion. 1992; 1(1):2–18. 10. Defra. A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment. Defra, 2018. 11. Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ, Cooper AB, Licht DS. Design and analysis of long-term ecological monitoring studies: Cambridge University Press; 2012.

12. Hochkirch A, Samways MJ, Gerlach J, Bo¨hm M, Williams P, Cardoso P, et al. A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 2020. https://doi.org/10. 1111/cobi.13589 PMID: 32656858 13. Groom QJ, Desmet P, Vanderhoeven S, Adriaens T. The importance of open data for invasive alien species research, policy and management. Management of Biological Invasions. 2015; 6(2):119. 14. Beck J, Ballesteros-Mejia L, Nagel P, Kitching IJ. Online solutions and the ‘Wallacean shortfall’: what does GBIF contribute to our knowledge of species’ ranges? Divers Distrib. 2013; 19(8):1043–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12083 15. Brown J, Lomolino M. Biogeography, 2nd edn Sinauer Associates: Sunderland. MA, USA. 1998. 16. Brito D. Overcoming the Linnean shortfall: Data deficiency and biological survey priorities. Basic and Applied Ecology. 2010; 11(8):709–13. https://doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2010.09.007 17. de Carvalho MR, Bockmann FA, Amorim DS, Brandão CRF, de Vivo M, de Figueiredo JL, et al. Taxo- nomic Impediment or Impediment to Taxonomy? A Commentary on Systematics and the Cybertaxo- nomic-Automation Paradigm. Evolutionary Biology. 2007; 34(3):140–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692- 007-9011-6 18. Kim KC, Byrne LB. Biodiversity loss and the taxonomic bottleneck: emerging biodiversity science. Eco- logical Research. 2006; 21(6):794. 19. Boxshall G, Self D. UK Taxonomy & Systematics Review–2010. Results of survey undertaken by the

Review Team at the Natural History Museum serving as contractors to the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). 2011. 20. Agnarsson I, Kuntner M. Taxonomy in a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Sys- tematic Biology. 2007; 56(3):531–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701424546 PMID: 17562477 21. Hochkirch A. The insect crisis we can’t ignore. Nature. 2016; 539(7628):141-. https://doi.org/10.1038/ 539141a PMID: 27830820 22. Juanes F. Visual and acoustic sensors for early detection of biological invasions: Current uses and future potential. Journal for Nature Conservation. 2018; 42:7–11. https://doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/10. 1016/j.jnc.2018.01.003 23. Piaggio AJ, Engeman RM, Hopken MW, Humphrey JS, Keacher KL, Bruce WE, et al. Detecting an elu- sive invasive species: a diagnostic PCR to detect Burmese python in Florida waters and an assessment of persistence of environmental DNA. Molecular ecology resources. 2014; 14(2):374–80. https://doi. org/10.1111/1755-0998.12180 PMID: 24119154 24. Morris R. A change in funding directions: Implications for biological recording. British Journal of Ento- mology and Natural History. 2012; 25(3):143. 25. Isaac NJB, Pocock MJO. Bias and information in biological records. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2015; 115(3):522–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12532 26. Kampen H, Medlock JM, Vaux AGC, Koenraadt CJM, van Vliet AJH, Bartumeus F, et al. Approaches to passive mosquito surveillance in the EU. Parasites & Vectors. 2015; 8(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13071-014-0604-5 PMID: 25567671 PLOS ONE

Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 18 / 20

27. Preston CD. Following the BSBI’s lead: the influence of the Atlas of the British flora, 1962–2012. New Journal of Botany. 2013; 3(1):2–14. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042349713Y.0000000020 28. Pescott OL, Walker KJ, Pocock MJ, Jitlal M, Outhwaite CL, Cheffings CM, et al. Ecological monitoring with citizen science: the design and implementation of schemes for recording plants in Britain and Ire- land. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2015; 115(3):505–21. 29. Pocock MJO, Roy HE, Preston CD, Roy DB. The Biological Records Centre: a pioneer of citizen sci- ence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2015; 115(3):475–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12548 30. Brereton T, Botham M, Middlebrook I, Randle Z, Noble D, Roy D. United Kingdom Butterfly Monitoring Scheme Annual Report 2016. 2017. 31. Comont R, Miles S. BeeWalk Annual Report 2019. Bumblebee Conservation Trust, Stirling, Scotland UK. 2019. 32. CIESM ICfSEotMS. CIESM JellyWatch Program 2014 [cited 2021 12/04/2021]. http://www.ciesm.org/ marine/programs/jellywatch.htm. 33. Crall AW, Renz M, Panke BJ, Newman GJ, Chapin C, Graham J, et al. Developing cost-effective early detection networks for regional invasions. Biol Invasions. 2012; 14(12):2461–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10530-012-0256-3 34. Giovos I, Kleitou P, Poursanidis D, Batjakas I, Bernardi G, Crocetta F, et al. Citizen-science for monitor- ing marine invasions and stimulating public engagement: a case project from the eastern Mediterra- nean. Biol Invasions. 2019; 21(12):3707–21.

35. Groom Q, Strubbe D, Adriaens T, Davis AJ, Desmet P, Oldoni D, et al. Empowering Citizens to Inform Decision-Making as a Way Forward to Support Invasive Alien Species Policy. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2019; 4(1). 36. Kleitou P, Giovos I, Wolf W, Crocetta F. On the importance of citizen-science: the first record of Gonio- branchus obsoletus (Ru¨ ppell and Leuckart, 1830) from Cyprus (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Nudibranchia). BioInvasions Records. 2019; 8(2):252–7. 37. Wetzel FT, Bingham HC, Groom Q, Haase P, Kõljalg U, Kuhlmann M, et al. Unlocking biodiversity data: Prioritization and filling the gaps in biodiversity observation data in Europe. Biol Conserv. 2018; 221:78–85. 38. Garcı´a-Baro´n I, Giakoumi S, Santos MB, Granado I, Louzao M. The value of time-series data for con- servation planning. J Appl Ecol. 2021. 39. Colson AR, Cooke RM. Expert Elicitation: Using the Classical Model to Validate Experts’ Judgments. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 2018; 12(1):113–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/ rex022 40. Sutherland WJ, Burgman M. Policy advice: use experts wisely. Nature News. 2015; 526(7573):317. https://doi.org/10.1038/526317a PMID: 26469026 41. Roy HE, Peyton JM, Booy O. Guiding principles for utilizing social influence within expert-elicitation to inform conservation decision-making. Glob Change Biol. 2020;n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb. 15062 PMID: 32227619 42. Sutherland WJ, Dias MP, Dicks LV, Doran H, Entwistle AC, Fleishman E, et al. A horizon scan of emerg-

ing global biological conservation issues for 2020. Trends Ecol Evol. 2020; 35(1):81–90. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.010 PMID: 31813647 43. Grace M, Balzan M, Collier M, Geneletti D, Tomaskinova J, Abela R, et al. Priority knowledge needs for implementing nature-based solutions in the Mediterranean islands. Environmental Science & Policy. 2021; 116:56–68. https://doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.003 44. Pocock MJ, Newson SE, Henderson IG, Peyton J, Sutherland WJ, Noble DG, et al. Developing and enhancing biodiversity monitoring programmes: a collaborative assessment of priorities. J Appl Ecol. 2015; 52(3):686–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12423 PMID: 27642189 45. CBD CoBD. Fourth National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Nicosia: Department of Environment—Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, 2010. 46. Delipetrou P, Makhzoumi J, Dimopoulos P, Georghiou K. Cyprus. Mediterranean Island Landscapes: Springer; 2008. p. 170–203. 47. Vogiatzakis IN, Manolaki P, Zomeni M, Zotos S. Habitats. In: Sparrow DJ, John E, editors. An introduc- tion to the wildlife of Cyprus: Terra Cypria; 2016. 48. Manolaki P, Zotos S, Vogiatzakis IN. An integrated ecological and cultural framework for landscape sensitivity assessment in Cyprus. Land Use Policy. 2020; 92:104336. https://doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104336 49. Varnava AI, Roberts SP, Michez D, Ascher JS, Petanidou T, Dimitriou S, et al. The wild bees (Hyme-

noptera, Apoidea) of the island of Cyprus. ZooKeys. 2020; 924:1. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.924. 38328 PMID: 32308528 PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 19 / 20

50. Sparrow DJ, John E. An introduction to the wildlife of Cyprus: Terra Cypria; 2016. 51. Christodoulou CS. The impact of Acacia saligna invasion on the autochthonous communities of the Akrotiri salt marshes. University of Central Lancashire, Preston. 2003. 52. Tsintides T, Christodoulou CS, Delipetrou P, Georghiou K. The red data book of the flora of Cyprus. Cyprus Forestry Association Lefkosia 465. 2007. 53. Termaat T, van Strien AJ, van Grunsven RHA, De Knijf G, Bjelke U, Burbach K, et al. Distribution trends of European dragonflies under climate change. Divers Distrib. 2019; 25(6):936–50. https://doi.org/https %3A//doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12913 54. Sevilleja C, Collins S, Warren M, Wynhoff I, Van Swaay C, Dennis E, et al. European Butterfly Monitor- ing Scheme (eBMS): network development. Technical report. Butterfly Conservation Europe and ABLE/eBMS, 2020. 55. Hand R, Hadjikyriakou GN, Christodoulou CS. (continuously updated): Flora of Cyprus—a dynamic checklist. Published at http://www.flora-of-cyprus.eu/2011-2020 [cited 2020 09/10/2020]. http://www. flora-of-cyprus.eu/. 56. Roy HE, Peyton J, Aldridge DC, Bantock T, Blackburn TM, Britton R, et al. Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain. Glob Change Biol. 2014; 20 (12):3859–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12603 PMID: 24839235 57. August T, Harvey M, Lightfoot P, Kilbey D, Papadopoulos T, Jepson P. Emerging technologies for bio- logical recording. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2015; 115(3):731–49.

58. Bell S, Marzano M, Cent J, Kobierska H, Podjed D, Vandzinskaite D, et al. What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv. 2008; 17 (14):3443–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9357-9 59. Moreira F, Allsopp N, Esler KJ, Wardell-Johnson G, Ancillotto L, Arianoutsou M, et al. Priority questions for biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean biome: Heterogeneous perspectives across conti- nents and stakeholders. Conservation Science and Practice. 2019; 1(11):e118. https://doi.org/https% 3A//doi.org/10.1111/csp2.118 60. Sutherland WJ, Roy DB, Amano T. An agenda for the future of biological recording for ecological moni- toring and citizen science. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2015; 115(3):779–84. https://doi. org/10.1111/bij.12576 61. Giannakopoulos C, Hadjinicolaou P, Kostopoulou E, Varotsos K, Zerefos C. Precipitation and tempera- ture regime over Cyprus as a result of global climate change. Advances in Geosciences. 2010; 23:17– 24. 62. Hadjinicolaou P, Giannakopoulos C, Zerefos C, Lange MA, Pashiardis S, Lelieveld J. Mid-21st century climate and weather extremes in Cyprus as projected by six regional climate models. Regional Environ- mental Change. 2011; 11(3):441–57. 63. Kleitou P, Crocetta F, Giakoumi S, Giovos I, Hall-Spencer JM, Kalogirou S, et al. Fishery reforms for the management of non-indigenous species. Journal of Environmental Management. 2021; 280:111690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111690 PMID: 33246748

64. Roy HE, Preston CD, Roy DB. Fifty years of the Biological Records Centre. Biological Journal of the Lin- nean Society. 2015; 115(3):469–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12575 65. Franklin J, Serra-Diaz JM, Syphard AD, Regan HM. Big data for forecasting the impacts of global change on plant communities. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2017; 26(1):6–17. https://doi.org/https%3A//doi.org/ 10.1111/geb.12501 66. Franz NM, Sterner BW. To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data. Database. 2018; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bax100 PMID: 29315357 67. Hayhow D, Eaton M, Stanbury A, Burns F, Kirby W, Bailey N, et al. State of nature 2019. 2019. PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 20 / 20