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

There was broad agreement between and within affiliation type for the higher ranking monitoring needs (Table 1), with agreement generally decreasing further down the list. The biodiversity monitoring need: “There is standardised methodology and protocols to ensure con- sistency” was considered to be of importance by Consultants, Government representatives, NGOs and Researchers, with over half the respondents within these affiliations selecting it in their top ten. Biological recorders (i.e. amateur experts) selected a narrower range of monitor- ing needs that they considered to be of importance, with 13 out of a possible twenty selected; this is in comparison to Consultants and Other expertise who selected 17 and 18 out of 26 respectively. The two most important themes, with importance being assigned by the number of times they were placed in the top 10, were Design and Human resource (Fig 3). Design, Human resource and Design/Human Resource-based monitoring needs were selected 189 times out of the 266 selections made. Needs classified as Analytical were selected the second most fre- quently (n = 41). Technological and other (non-human) resource-based needs were viewed as less important by stakeholders. Overall scoring for the adequacy of the survey in representing biodiversity monitoring gaps in Cyprus was favourable (Table 2). The average score per affiliation-type was over seven (with 10 being most useful). “Governmental” stakeholders agreed most strongly with the monitoring

needs (average score 9.2), and the variability in the range of scores was generally low across the stakeholder groups, with the exception of the “Researcher” affiliation that had scores ranging from 1 through to 10. The lowest average score was for the “Researcher” category at 7.4 out of 10. Step 3. Expert-elicitation workshop 3.i. Twenty-five monitoring needs were taken forward for voting by stakeholders whilst together in plenary, following the merging of two biodiversity monitoring needs, as outlined in the methods above. 3.ii and 3.iii. During the expert-elicitation process that followed the breakout group dis- cussions, the 25 needs were further modified and combined in order to better align with the stakeholders needs or to reduce redundancy within the monitoring needs. The following needs were modified: 1. “There is standardised methodology and protocols to ensure consistency”. This was amended to incorporate the following four needs: 1. There are suitable field sampling methods that are accurate/efficient Table 2. Results of stakeholder responses. Organisation Average score of usefulness Range Biological recorder (n = 2) 8 6–10 Consultant (n = 2) 8 8 Government (n = 7) 9.2 8–10 NGO (n = 5) 7.8 7–10 Researcher (n = 9) 7.4 1–10 Other expertise (n = 2) 8 8 Results of 26 stakeholders responses asked whether the online questionnaire (S1 File) adequately represented any gaps in biological monitoring in Cyprus. Stakeholders were asked to score how useful the survey was from 10 ’very useful’ to 1 ’not useful at all’.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777.t002 PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 11 / 20