In an ideal world, the answer is probably yes. Still, there are practical barriers to achieving this on a European scale soon. You could argue that using all the count data for an individual species is preferable because it provides a more robust estimate of the trend. The assumption behind our procedure to use all count data is that the population trend of species selected as characteristic for a particular habitat reflects changes in that habitat because the vast majority of its population uses that habitat for breeding or feeding. The alternative approach of only taking trend data from farmland plots for farmland birds, or forest plots for forest birds, is attractive because there is a direct link between the birds and the habitat, but producing habitat-specific trends requires high-quality computerized data on habitat and birds, and this is not currently possible in several countries. So far, experience at the national level, e.g. from the UK, where habitat-specific indicators have been produced, shows that both approaches can give very similar results. This is a finding now echoed in other European countries too. So the UK has decided not to use habitat-specific indicators in part because the trends were so similar to those using all count data, and in part, because it wishes to maintain continuity in the pre-established indicator series (and not keep moving the goalposts). However, it would be worthwhile exploring this issue further, and the PECBMS plans to do so in the future. This is certainly possible as nearly all national monitoring schemes routinely collect information on habitat type at sample plots. The challenge is to combine the bird and habitat data in each country and produce habitat-specific trends appropriate for each species.