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

nine out of 56 invited stakeholders attended the workshop. These stakeholders were from the same sectors as in Step 2, and were from both the UK and Cyprus; UK participants were either active in biodiversity recording in Cyprus, or were invited to provide their experiences of prioritising biodiversity monitoring needs with limited resources. The 39 stakeholders included some of those who had taken part in Step 2 (n = 16) and also stakeholders who had not (n = 23). The workshop was combined with a plenary session with presentations from all stakeholder groups, in order for the stakeholders to understand the range of monitoring already undertaken across Cyprus, and to learn about potentially relevant UK approaches. An overview presentation of the summary results from the online survey was also given during the plenary session (S2 File). Step 3i. Following the presentation of the online survey results, stakeholders discussed and reviewed the ranked list of 26 biodiversity monitoring needs from the online survey (Step 2) during the plenary. During the discussions, it was agreed that two of the monitoring needs could be merged: “There are sufficient contributors with specialist knowledge of their taxa combined” was merged with “There are sufficient contributors”, to give: “There are sufficient ’and sustained’ contributors with specialist knowledge of their taxa”. This then gave 25 biodiversity monitoring needs taken forward for further discussion and ranking in breakout groups. Step 3ii. The group of 39 stakeholders was divided into two breakout groups to discuss

and review the ranked list of 25 biodiversity monitoring needs. The breakout groups then re- merged in a final plenary session to review the biodiversity monitoring needs and generate an agreed overall list of these. Step 3iii. The results of the online ranking exercise of biodiversity monitoring needs (S2 File) were re-summarised (Table 1) and used as a point from which to start the consensus- building process. During the exercise it was made clear to stakeholders that each biodiversity monitoring need could be moved up or down the list, with the ultimate location in the list not being directly dependent on the original online rank score. Stakeholders were also encouraged, following the discussions of the breakout groups, to edit the monitoring needs where it was felt they needed combining, or exhibited redundancy, and also to suggest additional needs that were missing from the original list. Step 3iv. The biodiversity monitoring needs were collectively prioritised into three cate- gories during the expert-elicitation process, the top (most important), middle (intermediate importance) and bottom (least important) (Table 3). Stakeholders preferred to represent the results three categories as opposed to an individually ranked list. After the workshop, general themes were ascribed to all the biodiversity monitoring needs in order to assess the relative priorities of different types; however, these should not be taken as the only possible categorisation (Tables 1 and 3, Fig 3). Five themes were assigned as follows:

1. Analytical, e.g. the capacity to analyse data to produce biodiversity time trends; 2. Design, e.g. monitoring design for the programme including protocols around reporting of species; 3. Human resource, e.g. the time contribution or availability of the participant or coordinator to ensure that data are collected and collated; 4. Technological, e.g. the use of methods involved in data capture such as data loggers or the use of mobile applications; and PLOS ONE Expert-elicitation to prioritise biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256777 March 24, 2022 8 / 20