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

range of stakeholder interests, as well as regional needs and possible funding mechanisms. However, despite the many recorded benefits of stakeholder involvement, this approach to elu- cidating answers can also risk bringing in participant bias [40]. For example, within our work- shop, although 27 stakeholders took part in the online survey and 39 stakeholders in the workshop, the biological recording community (i.e. amateur experts, or citizen scientists col- lecting biological records) was arguably under-represented, which may have shifted the focus from the prioritisation of results towards data user needs, as data contributors can have differ- ent motivations to users. The stakeholders participating in both the online questionnaire and expert-elicitation workshop were primarily end-users of data; however they did not solely prioritise needs focused on design and analysis (professional end users typically rely on detailed and accurate systematic data to inform decision-making). This could be attributed to limitations inherent to one often encountered definition of data users: data users are tradition- ally considered to be academics or government agencies [44]. Whilst this assumption may hold true in some places and at some times, it may also be the case that data users are contribu- tors of biodiversity data. Those stakeholders who are also undertaking recording in a voluntary capacity may therefore have a more human resource-focused view of monitoring needs. As such, through this expert-elicitation process, we suggest that we have reached a reasonably

robust community consensus on the biodiversity monitoring needs most relevant to Cyprus. It was unexpected that technology-based needs, and needs associated with technology, were not ranked consistently highly in both the online questionnaire and workshop. Advances in technology, for example websites that allow for rapid data entry, that promote straightforward data sharing, or which facilitate the automation of record “validation”, are an important part of modern biological recording [57]. However, the ready availability of some technologies at this point in history, such as mobile apps and data sharing portals, are likely to mean that these biodiversity monitoring needs are not as important when compared to having enough human resources (support and mentoring etc.) to undertake the monitoring in the first instance. Reporting back to data collectors is often seen as a key motivator for ensuring engagement of recorders (e.g. see 24). However the biodiversity monitoring need “The data from monitor- ing schemes are widely disseminated” was one of the lowest priorities for both the online ques- tionnaire and expert-elicitation workshop. Its placement could be due to other biodiversity monitoring needs being considered higher priorities, rather than this aspiration being unim- portant per se. One stakeholder suggested that this could be due to local scientific monitoring cultures in place on the island that resist data sharing due to perceptions relating to the loss of control over such data, and/or the lack of professional reward currently associated with such actions.

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