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

Results Step 1: Developing the list of biodiversity monitoring needs in Cyprus Following the initial review of the list of 25 biodiversity monitoring needs [44], the text “There is good retention of contributors” was modified slightly so as to generate a clearer biodiversity monitoring need: “There is sustained participation” (note that biodiversity monitoring needs are given in italics throughout). The modified list was then further amended following input from MH (author) to include the additional biodiversity monitoring need: “There is extra effort on protected areas, e.g. Natura 2000 sites”. This resulted in 26 monitor- ing needs for inclusion in the questionnaire described below (see Table 1). Step 2. Online survey results Stakeholder affiliation. Twenty-nine out of 47 invited stakeholders completed the online questionnaire prior to the workshop; two results were excluded due to not having sufficient data for analysis, leaving 27 records for use in the workshop (S2 File). The 27 stakeholder respondent affiliations were re-categorised post-workshop, based on the information pro- vided, in order to create what were considered to be more informative groups. As such, Uni- versity and non-private Research Institute were combined to give “Researcher”, and “Consultant” was added to give more detail for affiliations previously listed as “Other”. The fol- lowing six post-workshop affiliation types were used in the analyses: Biological recorders (n = 2); Consultants (n = 2); Government staff (n = 7); NGO staff (n = 5); Researcher (n = 9);

and Other expertise (including non-response) (n = 2). Stakeholder biodiversity interests. Fig 2 provides a summary of the results from stake- holders who responded to the online question asking for information on biodiversity interests. Note that the category “Insect invertebrates” included those with expertise in aquatic inverte- brates; also, “inland fish” was renamed “freshwater fish” for clarity. “Other expertise” included non-response data. No environment-focused (as opposed to taxon-focused) responses were given (Fig 2). A maximum of 81 affiliation/biodiversity interest combinations were possible for the 27 respondents (three choices x 27). Fifty-four combinations were returned, with three respondents choosing more than three options. Government and research stakeholders showed a broad range of monitoring interests across taxonomic groups, while the NGO stake- holders focused on amphibians, reptiles and birds. Plants and insect invertebrates (including aquatic taxa) were the best represented taxonomic groups (Fig 2). Top ten priority monitoring needs. The results of the online ranking exercise (Step 2) for the top ten needs are given in Table 1. All 26 monitoring needs, from the original list, were selected at least once by a stakeholder. The biodiversity monitoring needs “There is standard- ised methodology and protocols to ensure consistency” and “Mentoring, training and support for contributors is provided” were the two top selections (each was selected 18 times) from the online surveys.

Monitoring needs primarily relating to reporting (i.e. recording), such as “There are simple ways for everyone to report widespread / common / easily-identified species” and “There are sys- tems for electronically capturing data in the field”, along with “Examples of best practice are identified and shared between schemes and organisations” were ranked lowest by the respon- dents (Table 1). A maximum of 270 top ten selected monitoring needs was possible (27 respondents x 10 monitoring needs), and a total of 266 selections were made. Additional com- ments on the survey questions, or points considered important, captured from stakeholders are given in S3 File. PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 10 / 20