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

2. There are appropriate analytical/statistical approaches to measure trends from monitoring data 3. Recorders collect supplementary data (such as characteristics of the habitat, soil or weather). This need was considered important for the marine environment as certain data, e.g. temperature or depth, were considered hard to get for this environment 4. Examples of best practice are identified and shared between schemes and organisations 2. “Change is reported at appropriate intervals” and “Change is reported on an annual basis” were combined to give the new biodiversity monitoring need “Change is reported at appro- priate intervals e.g. on an annual basis”. 3. The biodiversity monitoring need “There are data systems (e.g. online) for efficient data cap- ture and storage” was amended to “There are improved and accessible data systems (e.g. online) for efficient data capture and storage”. During the expert-elicitation workshop, separate monitoring needs were not assigned indi- vidual ranks, but rather consensus was reached on the relative positioning of groups of moni- toring needs taken together. The following ranked groups of monitoring needs was established: a top priority group of nine; a middle group of five; and a bottom group of six (Table 3). The relative positions of the monitoring needs from the online survey were very sim- ilar to those decided upon during the workshop (accounting for the editing of the six monitor- ing needs described previously), with monitoring needs broadly being found in the same

relative positions in terms of top, middle and lower levels (Table 3). Eight of the top nine biodi- versity monitoring needs from the workshop were also in agreement with the results of the online survey (Tables 1 and 3). The largest change in priority for a monitoring need between the online survey and the workshop was “Communicate the objectives of monitoring” which increased in relative importance during the workshop, having been selected only nine times during the online scoring exercise but becoming a top need in the workshop. Discussion Globally there is a need to deliver robust data to quantify changes in biodiversity, thereby help- ing to ensure that conservation funds and other resources are used optimally. This goal, how- ever, also requires an appropriate prioritisation strategy wherever resources are limited, e.g. in a given region should we focus on training volunteers or employing more professionals? Should we record broad-scale distributions across multiple taxa, or intensively monitor a small selection of species’ populations? To assist with this goal, we have developed a structured set of biodiversity monitoring needs for Cyprus using questionnaire-based online rankings and sub- sequent workshop-based expert-elicitation. High priority needs in Cyprus primarily focused around two themes: Human resource and Design. Despite technologies playing an important role in advancing the generation and utilisation of biological data for conservation in some locations [57], we found that technology-based needs were a lower priority for our stakehold-

ers. Needs related to data analysis ranked in the middle of both our online and expert-elicita- tion rankings. Monitoring needs focused on design were prioritised highly, but those needs focused on human resources, such as: • “Mentoring, training and support for contributors is provided”, • “There are quality assurance checks undertaken in order to ensure the accuracy of the records” and PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 12 / 20