8th June 2021

I have previously written about the importance of data management, specifically spatial data, which includes formatting, naming conventions, and spatial referencing. But what if your data is not fit for purpose in the first place?

It is no secret that the field of biodiversity measuring and monitoring in the infrastructure industry is growing, with more clients setting targets for no net loss or net gain on their sites. However, completing biodiversity calculations is not as simple combining data from previous surveys. To create the baseline for a site, ecologists most likely will be using Phase I habitat surveys, which is often akin to a risk assessment and therefore one of the first surveys to take place on site. The Phase I survey works well as a tool to map the area’s “current state”, and to provide points interest that may require further surveying. However, it might not be suitable for comprehensive and accurate biodiversity calculations without further surveying, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the Defra 2.0 Biodiversity Metric requires calculation of habitats that use the UK Habitats classification, which currently requires a translation from the Phase I classification. This is likely to change moving forward, with UK Habitats being given alongside Phase I, however this is not the case for historic surveys. 

Secondly, the biodiversity calculations require a scoring for the habitat’s condition, which is completed through a field survey that is not a required part of the Phase I survey. This should now be requested as part of any new Phase I surveys if biodiversity assessments are required, but again, will not be the case for previously completed surveys.

Finally, the broad mapping of Phase I habitats does not always show the level of detail required and may lead to a discrepancy in the calculation due to the mis-recording and over-simplification of habitat types. 

Due to the aforementioned parameters, more time is spent by ecologists, environmental advisors and GIS technicians correcting the original baseline. This includes further ground-truthing (particularly when the baseline data is out-dated), estimations of habitat distinctiveness and condition (if works have already started/taken place), and digitising changes in polygons. These efforts could potentially add up to at least a week’s worth of time, depending on the size of the site.  

As biodiversity reporting is to become a requirement in the next couple of years, it is important to look at our current processes and identify means of incorporating new assessments that save time and costs. This could include efficient data collection when on the ground using tablets and mobile devices, or remote surveying to identify discrepancies/changes in the Phase I survey.

Moving forward, ensuring an efficient process for biodiversity calculations on new developments surely means collating assessments with the Phase I Survey, thus reducing the time ecologists need to be out on site to provide detailed habitat data, as well as a fluid process that enables and encourages contractors to complete biodiversity calculations.