When we started developing FRIDAS, it was never a debate as to whether the principles behind it should be made publicly available. We chose to make the documentation open source immediately. The original Addressing GIS Data Standards in Biodiversity Net Gain Management whitepaper, the GIS Data Standards for Biodiversity Net Gain Best Practice Standard and the FRIDAS: A GIS Data Quality Assessment whitepaper have all been published as open resources, in addition to all of our FRIDAS Fieldnotes insights. While the FRIDAS brand, certification process and future assurance services remain protected, the thinking behind the framework is available for others to read, challenge and build upon.
The reason for that decision comes back to the nature of the problem we are trying to address. Many of the challenges facing Biodiversity Net Gain are not unique to any one organisation. They affect developers, ecologists, GIS specialists, local authorities, habitat banks and regulators alike. We are all working with large volumes of spatial data that underpin habitat mapping, biodiversity calculations, planning submissions and long-term monitoring commitments. Yet discussions about the quality and management of that data have often lagged behind wider conversations about policy and ecology.
Conversations with people across the BNG sector often return to the same theme: a lack of consistency in how spatial data is prepared, managed and assessed. If we want environmental data quality to improve across the sector, the conversation needs to be visible. Making the framework available allows practitioners, local authorities, ecologists, GIS specialists and software providers to understand the principles behind FRIDAS, test them against their own experiences and contribute to the wider discussion around data governance within BNG.
A related challenge is that different professions often use different language to describe similar issues. A GIS specialist may talk about topology, positional accuracy, metadata or lineage. An ecologist may focus on habitat classification, condition assessments and survey evidence. Developers, investors and regulators are often approaching the same information through the lens of risk and assurance. Although they are discussing the same datasets, they are not always speaking the same language.
FRIDAS was developed to help bridge those conversations through six core dimensions:
Format
Red Line Boundary
Identification
Data
Attributes
Slope
The aim was to provide a practical framework that allows people from different disciplines to discuss common data quality issues using a shared structure and common terminology.
There is also a practical benefit to making standards publicly available. They are more likely to be adopted when people can read them, understand them and scrutinise them for themselves. Open publication allows others to review the methodology, challenge assumptions, suggest improvements and apply elements of the framework within their own workflows. That process of scrutiny is healthy. It improves clarity, highlights weaknesses and helps ensure the framework continues to evolve alongside the industry it is intended to support.
As the Biodiversity Net Gain because the market is still developing, organisations are continuing to establish their own approaches to GIS data management, and there remains considerable variation in how data is prepared, transferred and reviewed. Open guidance provides a common reference point and helps support greater consistency across the sector.
At the same time, open source does not mean unmanaged. The documentation has been published openly because we believe good practice should be accessible. Independent assessments, certification processes, validation criteria and future assurance services remain part of the FRIDAS ecosystem. This creates a balance between sharing knowledge and maintaining consistency in how formal assessments are undertaken.
Ultimately, publishing the documentation was intended to start a wider conversation about environmental data quality, uncertainty and confidence in decision-making. If Biodiversity Net Gain is going to deliver meaningful outcomes over the next thirty years, confidence in ecological assessments needs to be matched by confidence in the data that supports them. Making the framework publicly available is our contribution to that conversation because better environmental decisions depend on better environmental data, and improving the quality of that data is something that benefits the entire sector.
