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

Developing cross-taxa networks. “Examples of best practice are identified and shared between schemes and organisations” was not highly scored during the online questionnaire (S1 File). During the expert-elicitation workshop, this biodiversity monitoring need was subse- quently amalgamated with three other needs: “There are suitable field sampling methods that are accurate/efficient”; “There are appropriate analytical/statistical approaches to measure trends from monitoring data”; and “Recorders collect supplementary data (such as characteristics of the habitat, soil or weather)” to give the biodiversity monitoring need “There is standardised methodology and protocols to ensure consistency”. This became one of the top nine biodiversity monitoring needs. Should this need become a higher actual priority on Cyprus, the approach taken by the National Forum for Biological Recording (NFBR) charity in the UK may be relevant. The NFBR works across taxonomic groups to support biological recorders, hosts conferences, and represents their interests in governmental decision-making, through mechanisms such as the State of Nature report [67]. Such a model could enable the Cypriot biological recording community to share ideas and experiences for the maintenance and support of biodiversity monitoring. Conclusion Prioritising biodiversity monitoring needs is becoming increasingly important as we continue to see major declines in biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem function [1]. Through a consensus exercise, a hierarchy of three groups of monitoring needs was created. As well as the

priority list supporting decision-making by providing a snapshot of one consensus developed across a range of biodiversity monitoring stakeholders, we hope that the full list of needs will also assist with the development of robust monitoring programmes simply by providing a checklist of considerations. In this way, organisations and funders can ensure that all relevant monitoring needs have been considered, and that the, inevitably values-based, prioritisation that must take place whenever funds are limited is based on a full, and hopefully transparent, consideration of all available options. Supporting information S1 File. Online survey questionnaire. English version of online survey questionnaire sent to stakeholders working in the field of biodiversity monitoring in Cyprus (in both Greek and English). Results were collected using the online survey platform https://www.onlinesurveys. ac.uk/. (DOCX) S2 File. Unprocessed results from an online survey. Unprocessed results from an online sur- vey sent to stakeholders working in the field of biodiversity monitoring in Cyprus (in both Greek and English). Information that would make individuals identifiable has been removed for the purposes of publication. Each respondent has a unique code generated by the online survey. Respondents were asked if they were able to attend the workshop. They were also asked to select their organisation from a pre-populated list or to select “other” and then specify. Responses that were submitted in Greek were translated by the project partners. Respondents

were then asked to give their top three biodiversity monitoring interests from a pre-populated list with a free text box for additional information. Respondents were then asked to rank biodi- versity monitoring needs given in a pre-populated list that represent the 10 most important gaps or opportunities in biological recording. Next, stakeholders were asked to rank how ade- quately the questionnaire addressed the biological recording gaps in Cyprus. Finally, PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 16 / 20