A Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard: Addressing
Challenges to Monitoring Progress towards the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets Using Disaggregated
Global Data
Introduction indicatorbased biodiversity monitoring, including (a) the United
Nations Millennium Development Goal #7 [5] and the draft new
Resource monitoring has long been recognized as a cornerstone
Sustainable Development Goals [6]; (b) intergovernmental treaties
of biodiversity and conservation science [1,2,3]. In 2010, at the 10th
that provide mechanisms for national action and international
Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Abstract
Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world’s governments committed in 2010
to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversity’s ‘‘Aichi Targets’’.
These targets, and many conservation programs, require monitoring to assess progress toward specific goals. However,
comprehensive and easily understood information on biodiversity trends at appropriate spatial scales is often not available to the
policy makers, managers, and scientists who require it. We surveyed conservation stakeholders in three geographically diverse
regions of critical biodiversity concern (the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong) and found high
demand for biodiversity indicator information but uneven availability. To begin to address this need, we present a biodiversity
‘‘dashboard’’ – a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed to enable tracking of biodiversity and conservation performance
data in a clear, user-friendly format. This builds on previous, more conceptual, indicator work to create an operationalized online
interface communicating multiple indicators at multiple spatial scales. We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-
Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species
(Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater
provision). Disaggregating global data, we present dashboard maps and graphics for the three regions surveyed and their
component countries. These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-
enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard. This new tool can help track progress toward the Aichi Targets, support
national monitoring and reporting, and inform outcome-based policy-making for the protection of natural resources.
Citation: Han X, Smyth RL, Young BE, Brooks TM, Sa´nchez de Lozada A, et al. (2014) A Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard: Addressing Challenges to Monitoring
Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Using Disaggregated Global Data. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112046. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112046 Editor: Julia A. Jones,
Oregon State University, United States of America
Received April 21, 2014; Accepted October 11, 2014; Published November 19, 2014
Copyright: 2014 Han et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All indicator data referenced in the manuscript can be
accessed and viewed through the Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard (http://dashboarddev.natureserve.org/dashboard/map.html) in various data formats and at various
scales, by indicator and by regions.
Funding: This work was supported by awards from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (URL: http://www.macfound.org/) to NatureServe addressing
"Dashboard assessments: proof-of-concept and baselines" (Grant No. 11-98252-000-INP), "Moving graphical presentation of biodiversity conservation monitoring
indicators from a static proof-of-concept to a dynamic prototype" (Grant No. 12-100096-000-INP), and the bridge grant between the two ( Grant No. 12-102962-000-
INP). The funders supported the concept development in study design phase, but had no role in data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* Email:
cooperation, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands [7] and
(CBD), 193 nations agreed to twenty ‘‘Aichi Biodiversity the Convention on Migratory Species [8], (c) science-policy
Targets’’, and in doing so committed to updating their National interfaces such as the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and developing and Ecosystem Services [9]; and (d) partnerships or networks in
monitoring programs to assess progress [4]. The Aichi Targets rely support of the above mentioned bodies, such as the Biodiversity
upon indicators to report progress towards reducing pressure on Indicators Partnership [10,11,12], and the Group on Earth
biodiversity, maintaining and improving the state of biodiversity, Observations Biodiversity Observations Network Working Group
implementing conservation actions to ameliorate biodiversity loss, #9 [13].
and providing benefits to human well-being [4]. Many other
initiatives and multilateral agreements call for similar
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e112046
, A Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard
Monitoring called for by these programs is essential both to Turkana/Omo) across Ethiopia, South Sudan, Kenya, Uganda,
document biodiversity change over time [14], to shed light onto key Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania,
ecological processes [15], and to measure the success or failure of Zambia, Malawi, and Mozambique. The Greater Mekong region
conservation interventions through counterfactual analysis encompasses the entire Mekong River Basin, spanning China,
[16,17,18,19]. However, most existing monitoring programs have Myanmar, Vietnam, Lao P.D.R., Cambodia, and Thailand [25].
been designed primarily at localized scales, and often produce We delineated regional boundaries for the Tropical Andes,
information that is disaggregated, heterogeneous, and African Great Lakes and Greater Mekong regions using
nonstandardized when considered at national or regional scales hydrological basins derived from HydroSHEDS and compiled by
[20]. Monitoring requirements for measuring conservation the UN-FAO, [27,28,29]. We performed analyses at both this
performance, of the kind necessary to track the Aichi Targets, regional scale, and at the national scale for the 22 countries that
require data that transcend the fine temporal, spatial, and these three regions overlap (including areas outside the focal
organizational scales commonly addressed in current literature watershed boundaries).
[15].
Documentation of conservation impacts and biodiversity 2. Challenges to Biodiversity Monitoring and Capacity
response must be accomplished in ways that are scientifically
Needs at Regional and National Scales
defensible, at appropriate temporal and spatial scales, and simple
enough to inform decision-making by the diverse group of We conducted seven consultation workshops in the three study
individuals and organizations working at the intersection of science regions between September 2011 and August 2012 to (1) better
and policy. Mounting global evidence shows that biodiversity loss understand the challenges to effective biodiversity monitoring at
is continuing at alarming rates [21,22], yet currently, two thirds of national and regional scales, (2) identify gaps in current monitoring
national reports submitted to the CBD lack evidence-based capacity and potential mechanisms for filling those gaps, and (3)
measures to illustrate changes in the status of biodiversity [23]. begin to explore mechanisms for integrating local and national
National capacity is often insufficient to measure many indicators monitoring data into future regional and national biodiversity
of interest using on-the-ground methods, particularly in developing indicators. In total, 260 individuals from 20 countries attended at
countries [24]. Even when national data are available, a lack of least one of the workshops, with broad representation from the
standardization across countries can make regional assessment public, civil-society, and academic sectors. Invitees included those
difficult or impossible [20]. with professional responsibility for National Biodiversity Strategies
and Action Plans for monitoring progress towards Aichi Targets,
To better understand the challenges to effective biodiversity
and managers and technical experts responsible for designing and
monitoring at national and regional scales, and how finer-scale (e.g.
conducting biodiversity monitoring programs at multiple scales.
national) data might be integrated into a framework for global
monitoring of biodiversity status and trends, we surveyed local At each workshop, we solicited multiple-choice feedback on two
conservation experts working in areas of high conservation value issues: 1) the spatial scales of monitoring that participants required
on monitoring and capacity needs. Building from the needs to guide their work (regional, national, sub-national, watershed,
identified in those workshops, we then developed the concept for a and/or site scales); and 2) the status of monitoring of selected
biodiversity indicators dashboard using indicators derived from biodiversity indicators for pressure, state, response, and benefits at
global data sets and constructed a dashboard prototype. This is the the national scale, with answer options of ‘‘Monitored’’, ‘‘Limited
first operationalized dashboard to date that communicates multiple Monitoring’’ (monitoring that has been conducted in some areas
biodiversity indicators at multiple scales, and directly serves the but not systematically done across the country), ‘‘Not Monitored’’,
global need to monitor progress towards Aichi Targets. Full or ‘‘Unknown’’. Of the 260 workshop participants, 132 (51%)
development of the biodiversity indicators dashboard will submitted answers to these written questionnaires, of which 39 %
encompass: (1) identification of appropriate indicators, (2) proof of came from the public sector, 45% from civil-society, and 16 % from
concept using global data, (3) building the technological the academic sector. We also recorded and categorized responses to
infrastructure necessary to host the dashboard, (4) designing the open-ended questions addressing (1) the utility of tracking
visual interface for multiple platforms (i.e. web and mobile users), biodiversity indicators derived from existing global data with a
and (5) creating systems to support the integration of finer-scale dashboard approach and (2) national challenges in developing
(regional and national) data. Here, we address in detail steps 1 and sustainable biodiversity monitoring.
2 of the dashboard design, laying the foundation for a web-based To identify the preferred scales of monitoring, we tabulated the
tool freely available to all with an interest in biodiversity frequency of the scales that participants indicated were important.
conservation. A prototype of the tool is now available to the To quantify the existing capacity for monitoring in each of the
international conservation community at http://dashboarddev. targeted countries, we calculated a score based on the perceived
natureserve.org, with steps 3–5 being implemented in an on-going monitoring status for each biodiversity indicator. The score is
iterative process. scaled 0 (not monitored) to 1 (monitored), and equals P1 + 0.5P2,
Methods and Results doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112046.g001
1. Study Area
We considered three geographically diverse areas with
exceptional biodiversity value, that confront a high degree threat
and that receive significant investment by international with P1 the percent of respondents who answered ‘‘monitored’’ and
conservation agencies (Figure 1) [25,26]. The Tropical Andes P2 the percent of respondents who answered ‘‘limited monitoring’’.
region encompasses the eastern slope of the Andes, containing eight We used ANOVA to explore differences of monitoring status
watersheds of headwater rivers (Japura, Putumayo, Rio Maranon, between regions, and a repeated-measures ANOVA to examine
Ucayali, Guapore, Madre de Dios/Beni, Amazon, Magdalena) differences in monitoring status among indicators.
across Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. The Responses to the questionnaire indicate a strong demand for
Great Lakes region of Africa includes five major watersheds ( Lake reliable information on the state of, and pressures facing,
Victoria, Upper Nile, Lake Tanganyika, Lake Malawi/Nyasa, biodiversity. Regarding scales of monitoring, participants were
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e112046
, A Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard
Figure 1. Study area regions. From left to right: the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong.
most interested in analyses carried out at the site (82%) and national Support Monitoring Needs
levels (76%), followed by watershed (71%), sub-national (68%) 3.1 The Dashboard Concept. To address the challenges to
and regional levels (65%). biodiversity monitoring at regional and national scales identified by
Our questionnaires revealed significant differences in the degree the survey, we envision the creation of a biodiversity ‘‘dashboard’’
to which indicators are currently monitored (p,0.001), with – a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed
hydrologic measures (average score = 0.40) and species extinction
risk (0.57) less frequently monitored than deforestation (0.72) and
protected area coverage (0.79) (Figure 2). While there were no
differences in the average score across regions (p= 0.88), the status
of monitoring differed widely among nations. Of the 22 countries,
those with the highest overall scores for existing monitoring were
Colombia (0.875), Malawi (0.875), and Thailand (0.75). Countries
with very limited monitoring include South Sudan and the D. R.
Congo (both #0.25).
Among the open-ended questions, a third of survey respondents
from all sectors expressed high interest in using the dashboard
approach, and employing appropriate subsets of global scale data,
as a means to gather and share information to assess biodiversity
status and threats, assess and improve conservation impacts, and
inform policy, planning, and decision-making. Supporting capacity
building, promoting stakeholder participation and dissemination of
information were also frequently cited by survey respondents as
potential benefits of this effort (Figure 3).
Across regions, the challenges to effective monitoring (Figure 4)
include the lack of personnel, technology, and financial support for
data collection and management (45%), and limited information
accessibility and interoperability (40%). Emphasis varies among
regions, with African respondents stressing the need for support in
data management (24%), and Andean respondents more concerned
about scientific standards and methods (25%) and conservation
expertise and analysis (39%).
3. Creation of a Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard to
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e112046
Challenges to Monitoring Progress towards the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets Using Disaggregated
Global Data
Introduction indicatorbased biodiversity monitoring, including (a) the United
Nations Millennium Development Goal #7 [5] and the draft new
Resource monitoring has long been recognized as a cornerstone
Sustainable Development Goals [6]; (b) intergovernmental treaties
of biodiversity and conservation science [1,2,3]. In 2010, at the 10th
that provide mechanisms for national action and international
Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Abstract
Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world’s governments committed in 2010
to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversity’s ‘‘Aichi Targets’’.
These targets, and many conservation programs, require monitoring to assess progress toward specific goals. However,
comprehensive and easily understood information on biodiversity trends at appropriate spatial scales is often not available to the
policy makers, managers, and scientists who require it. We surveyed conservation stakeholders in three geographically diverse
regions of critical biodiversity concern (the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong) and found high
demand for biodiversity indicator information but uneven availability. To begin to address this need, we present a biodiversity
‘‘dashboard’’ – a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed to enable tracking of biodiversity and conservation performance
data in a clear, user-friendly format. This builds on previous, more conceptual, indicator work to create an operationalized online
interface communicating multiple indicators at multiple spatial scales. We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-
Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species
(Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater
provision). Disaggregating global data, we present dashboard maps and graphics for the three regions surveyed and their
component countries. These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-
enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard. This new tool can help track progress toward the Aichi Targets, support
national monitoring and reporting, and inform outcome-based policy-making for the protection of natural resources.
Citation: Han X, Smyth RL, Young BE, Brooks TM, Sa´nchez de Lozada A, et al. (2014) A Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard: Addressing Challenges to Monitoring
Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Using Disaggregated Global Data. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112046. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112046 Editor: Julia A. Jones,
Oregon State University, United States of America
Received April 21, 2014; Accepted October 11, 2014; Published November 19, 2014
Copyright: 2014 Han et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All indicator data referenced in the manuscript can be
accessed and viewed through the Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard (http://dashboarddev.natureserve.org/dashboard/map.html) in various data formats and at various
scales, by indicator and by regions.
Funding: This work was supported by awards from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (URL: http://www.macfound.org/) to NatureServe addressing
"Dashboard assessments: proof-of-concept and baselines" (Grant No. 11-98252-000-INP), "Moving graphical presentation of biodiversity conservation monitoring
indicators from a static proof-of-concept to a dynamic prototype" (Grant No. 12-100096-000-INP), and the bridge grant between the two ( Grant No. 12-102962-000-
INP). The funders supported the concept development in study design phase, but had no role in data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* Email:
cooperation, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands [7] and
(CBD), 193 nations agreed to twenty ‘‘Aichi Biodiversity the Convention on Migratory Species [8], (c) science-policy
Targets’’, and in doing so committed to updating their National interfaces such as the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and developing and Ecosystem Services [9]; and (d) partnerships or networks in
monitoring programs to assess progress [4]. The Aichi Targets rely support of the above mentioned bodies, such as the Biodiversity
upon indicators to report progress towards reducing pressure on Indicators Partnership [10,11,12], and the Group on Earth
biodiversity, maintaining and improving the state of biodiversity, Observations Biodiversity Observations Network Working Group
implementing conservation actions to ameliorate biodiversity loss, #9 [13].
and providing benefits to human well-being [4]. Many other
initiatives and multilateral agreements call for similar
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e112046
, A Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard
Monitoring called for by these programs is essential both to Turkana/Omo) across Ethiopia, South Sudan, Kenya, Uganda,
document biodiversity change over time [14], to shed light onto key Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania,
ecological processes [15], and to measure the success or failure of Zambia, Malawi, and Mozambique. The Greater Mekong region
conservation interventions through counterfactual analysis encompasses the entire Mekong River Basin, spanning China,
[16,17,18,19]. However, most existing monitoring programs have Myanmar, Vietnam, Lao P.D.R., Cambodia, and Thailand [25].
been designed primarily at localized scales, and often produce We delineated regional boundaries for the Tropical Andes,
information that is disaggregated, heterogeneous, and African Great Lakes and Greater Mekong regions using
nonstandardized when considered at national or regional scales hydrological basins derived from HydroSHEDS and compiled by
[20]. Monitoring requirements for measuring conservation the UN-FAO, [27,28,29]. We performed analyses at both this
performance, of the kind necessary to track the Aichi Targets, regional scale, and at the national scale for the 22 countries that
require data that transcend the fine temporal, spatial, and these three regions overlap (including areas outside the focal
organizational scales commonly addressed in current literature watershed boundaries).
[15].
Documentation of conservation impacts and biodiversity 2. Challenges to Biodiversity Monitoring and Capacity
response must be accomplished in ways that are scientifically
Needs at Regional and National Scales
defensible, at appropriate temporal and spatial scales, and simple
enough to inform decision-making by the diverse group of We conducted seven consultation workshops in the three study
individuals and organizations working at the intersection of science regions between September 2011 and August 2012 to (1) better
and policy. Mounting global evidence shows that biodiversity loss understand the challenges to effective biodiversity monitoring at
is continuing at alarming rates [21,22], yet currently, two thirds of national and regional scales, (2) identify gaps in current monitoring
national reports submitted to the CBD lack evidence-based capacity and potential mechanisms for filling those gaps, and (3)
measures to illustrate changes in the status of biodiversity [23]. begin to explore mechanisms for integrating local and national
National capacity is often insufficient to measure many indicators monitoring data into future regional and national biodiversity
of interest using on-the-ground methods, particularly in developing indicators. In total, 260 individuals from 20 countries attended at
countries [24]. Even when national data are available, a lack of least one of the workshops, with broad representation from the
standardization across countries can make regional assessment public, civil-society, and academic sectors. Invitees included those
difficult or impossible [20]. with professional responsibility for National Biodiversity Strategies
and Action Plans for monitoring progress towards Aichi Targets,
To better understand the challenges to effective biodiversity
and managers and technical experts responsible for designing and
monitoring at national and regional scales, and how finer-scale (e.g.
conducting biodiversity monitoring programs at multiple scales.
national) data might be integrated into a framework for global
monitoring of biodiversity status and trends, we surveyed local At each workshop, we solicited multiple-choice feedback on two
conservation experts working in areas of high conservation value issues: 1) the spatial scales of monitoring that participants required
on monitoring and capacity needs. Building from the needs to guide their work (regional, national, sub-national, watershed,
identified in those workshops, we then developed the concept for a and/or site scales); and 2) the status of monitoring of selected
biodiversity indicators dashboard using indicators derived from biodiversity indicators for pressure, state, response, and benefits at
global data sets and constructed a dashboard prototype. This is the the national scale, with answer options of ‘‘Monitored’’, ‘‘Limited
first operationalized dashboard to date that communicates multiple Monitoring’’ (monitoring that has been conducted in some areas
biodiversity indicators at multiple scales, and directly serves the but not systematically done across the country), ‘‘Not Monitored’’,
global need to monitor progress towards Aichi Targets. Full or ‘‘Unknown’’. Of the 260 workshop participants, 132 (51%)
development of the biodiversity indicators dashboard will submitted answers to these written questionnaires, of which 39 %
encompass: (1) identification of appropriate indicators, (2) proof of came from the public sector, 45% from civil-society, and 16 % from
concept using global data, (3) building the technological the academic sector. We also recorded and categorized responses to
infrastructure necessary to host the dashboard, (4) designing the open-ended questions addressing (1) the utility of tracking
visual interface for multiple platforms (i.e. web and mobile users), biodiversity indicators derived from existing global data with a
and (5) creating systems to support the integration of finer-scale dashboard approach and (2) national challenges in developing
(regional and national) data. Here, we address in detail steps 1 and sustainable biodiversity monitoring.
2 of the dashboard design, laying the foundation for a web-based To identify the preferred scales of monitoring, we tabulated the
tool freely available to all with an interest in biodiversity frequency of the scales that participants indicated were important.
conservation. A prototype of the tool is now available to the To quantify the existing capacity for monitoring in each of the
international conservation community at http://dashboarddev. targeted countries, we calculated a score based on the perceived
natureserve.org, with steps 3–5 being implemented in an on-going monitoring status for each biodiversity indicator. The score is
iterative process. scaled 0 (not monitored) to 1 (monitored), and equals P1 + 0.5P2,
Methods and Results doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112046.g001
1. Study Area
We considered three geographically diverse areas with
exceptional biodiversity value, that confront a high degree threat
and that receive significant investment by international with P1 the percent of respondents who answered ‘‘monitored’’ and
conservation agencies (Figure 1) [25,26]. The Tropical Andes P2 the percent of respondents who answered ‘‘limited monitoring’’.
region encompasses the eastern slope of the Andes, containing eight We used ANOVA to explore differences of monitoring status
watersheds of headwater rivers (Japura, Putumayo, Rio Maranon, between regions, and a repeated-measures ANOVA to examine
Ucayali, Guapore, Madre de Dios/Beni, Amazon, Magdalena) differences in monitoring status among indicators.
across Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. The Responses to the questionnaire indicate a strong demand for
Great Lakes region of Africa includes five major watersheds ( Lake reliable information on the state of, and pressures facing,
Victoria, Upper Nile, Lake Tanganyika, Lake Malawi/Nyasa, biodiversity. Regarding scales of monitoring, participants were
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e112046
, A Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard
Figure 1. Study area regions. From left to right: the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong.
most interested in analyses carried out at the site (82%) and national Support Monitoring Needs
levels (76%), followed by watershed (71%), sub-national (68%) 3.1 The Dashboard Concept. To address the challenges to
and regional levels (65%). biodiversity monitoring at regional and national scales identified by
Our questionnaires revealed significant differences in the degree the survey, we envision the creation of a biodiversity ‘‘dashboard’’
to which indicators are currently monitored (p,0.001), with – a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed
hydrologic measures (average score = 0.40) and species extinction
risk (0.57) less frequently monitored than deforestation (0.72) and
protected area coverage (0.79) (Figure 2). While there were no
differences in the average score across regions (p= 0.88), the status
of monitoring differed widely among nations. Of the 22 countries,
those with the highest overall scores for existing monitoring were
Colombia (0.875), Malawi (0.875), and Thailand (0.75). Countries
with very limited monitoring include South Sudan and the D. R.
Congo (both #0.25).
Among the open-ended questions, a third of survey respondents
from all sectors expressed high interest in using the dashboard
approach, and employing appropriate subsets of global scale data,
as a means to gather and share information to assess biodiversity
status and threats, assess and improve conservation impacts, and
inform policy, planning, and decision-making. Supporting capacity
building, promoting stakeholder participation and dissemination of
information were also frequently cited by survey respondents as
potential benefits of this effort (Figure 3).
Across regions, the challenges to effective monitoring (Figure 4)
include the lack of personnel, technology, and financial support for
data collection and management (45%), and limited information
accessibility and interoperability (40%). Emphasis varies among
regions, with African respondents stressing the need for support in
data management (24%), and Andean respondents more concerned
about scientific standards and methods (25%) and conservation
expertise and analysis (39%).
3. Creation of a Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard to
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 November 2014 | Volume 9 | Issue 11 | e112046
