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

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