The biodiversity metric 2.0

Page 1 of 3

Closes 29 Feb 2020


1. What is your name?
2. What is your email address?
If you enter your email address then you will automatically receive an acknowledgement email when you submit your response.
3. What is your organisation?
4. Are you completing this feedback on behalf of:
5. Have you previously used any type of biodiversity metric?
6. Are you familiar with the original 2012 Defra biodiversity metric
7. How confident are you in the broad accuracy of the biodiversity unit calculations generated by the biodiversity metric 2.0? Please select the answer that best reflects your view
Biodiversity metric 2.0 overall
Area habitats - baseline
Area habitats - forecast outcome
Hedgerows and lines of trees - baseline
Hedgerows and lines of trees - forecast outcome
Rivers and streams - baseline
Rivers and streams - forecast outcome
8. Please use the box below to give your reasons for selecting the confidence scores you provided in Question 7
9. Do you think that the way biodiversity metric 2.0 calculates biodiversity values generates any unjustified incentives or disincentives to create or enhance particular habitat types?
Heathland and scrub
Sparsely vegetated land
Urban (not including street trees)
Urban street trees
Hedgerows and lines of trees
Rivers and streams
10. If you answered 'yes' to Question 9 please give your reasons below
11. The original (2012) Defra biodiversity metric was criticised for under-rewarding habitats that take a long time to create and where one habitat is changing to another e.g. grassland to woodland The accelerated succession calculation within biodiversity metric 2.0 is intended to correct that. It is designed to better account for the value of habitats in situ whilst a new habitat becomes established i.e. the value of the underlying grassland as a new woodland establishes. Does the accelerated succession calculation address this problem?
12. Accelerated succession is currently only applied to woodland habitats in the metric. Should accelerated succession also be applied to other habitats?
Heathland and scrub
Sparsely vegetated land
Hedgerows and lines of trees
Rivers and streams
Woodland (already included)
13. If you answered in question 12 that accelerated succession should be applied to additional habitats please give your reasons below.
14. Do you have any other comments about the biodiversity metric 2.0 that you would like to make with regard to how it deals with habitat distinctiveness, condition and spatial significance?
15. Biodiversity metric 2.0 deliberately limits the number of variables within the metric by using pre-set values, for example the time to target condition values. This has been done to reduce the variability of calculations experienced by users of the original Defra biodiversity metric which led to some ‘gaming’ of that metric. Has this issue now been fixed within this update or are there still loop holes that could be exploited to ‘game’ the biodiversity metric 2.0
16. If you answered 'Yes' to Question 15 please indicate below what could be changed within biodiversity metric 2.0 to reduce the potential for the metric to be 'gamed':
17. Is there anything about the way that biodiversity metric 2.0 has been developed that you feel will have a disproportionate impacts upon user groups? Please state
18. Did you use the free calculation tool (spreadsheet) provided with biodiversity metric 2.0?
19. How ‘user-friendly’ did you find the calculation tool.
20. Did you encounter any calculation errors or technical difficulties when using the calculation tool?
21. If you answered 'Yes' to question 20 please describe the nature of the calculation error or technical difficulty you encountered. Please be as specific as possible i.e. provide the sheet name and column and row reference e.g. Main Menu B26
22. Would you find a web-based or app version of the biodiversity metric 2.0 calculation tool useful? (please select)
23. We are considering creating a simplified version of the calculation tool for use as part of a simplified biodiversity net gain assessment. Would a simplified calculation tool be useful?
24. Do you have any other comments you would like to make about the biodiversity metric 2.0 calculation tool? If so, please state below
25. Please select which, if any, of the following guidance materials you used.
26. Please rank each of the guidance materials you used 1-5 with 1 being very good, 3 is neutral and 5 being very poor.
User Guidance
Technical Supplement
Calculation Tool
Calculation Tool - Summary Guidance
27. Did you use any of the condition assessment methodologies/sheets provided in the technical summary?
28. If you answered 'Yes' to question 27 please indicate below how straightforward or not you found the condition assessment methodologies were to follow:
Area habitats e.g. heathland, woodland
Hedgerows & lines of trees
Rivers & streams
29. Please provide any comments you have on the condition assessment approaches in the box below
30. Do you have any further comments you would like to make about this test version of biodiversity metric 2.0, the calculation tool and the associated guidance materials?