With Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) now mandatory under the Environment Act 2021​, developers, local planning authorities (LPAs), and landowners are increasingly relying on technology to streamline assessments, monitor compliance, and ensure that habitats are enhanced over the required 30-year period.

However, despite its growing role, misconceptions about technology in BNG persist. Some believe that digital tools will replace ecologists, while others assume automated assessments are infallible. In reality, technology is an enabler—helping to standardise assessments, reduce errors, and improve long-term monitoring, but not a substitute for ecological expertise.

Let’s break down five common myths about technology in BNG and uncover the truths behind them.

Misconception #1: “Technology will replace ecologists”

The Truth: Ecologists remain essential for accurate BNG assessments 

A common fear is that AI-powered BNG calculators, remote sensing, and digital habitat models will make ecologists redundant. But BNG compliance is too complex for technology alone.

Why technology won’t replace ecologists:

• BNG calculations rely on expert judgment: While software can process habitat data, it cannot assess ecological distinctiveness, species richness, or seasonal variations—all crucial for the statutory BNG metric.
• Remote sensing needs ground-truthing: Drones and satellites can map habitats, but on-site verification is required to confirm habitat conditions and ensure BNG unit calculations are correct.
• BNG is a long-term commitment: Ecologists are needed beyond the planning phase to oversee habitat management and ensure BNG delivery over 30 years.

Verdict: Technology enhances BNG efficiency but ecologists remain at the heart of compliance and monitoring.

Misconception #2: “BNG tools provide instant and perfectly accurate calculations”

The Truth: BNG metrics require expert interpretation

Many assume that BNG software tools and digital mapping solutions provide flawless results. However, BNG assessments involve complexities that technology alone cannot resolve.

The reality:

• BNG metric calculations depend on habitat condition scoring, which requires ecologist input—AI can suggest values, but it cannot replace expert judgment.
• Automated habitat classification has limitations: AI can misinterpret habitats, particularly where boundaries between distinct habitat types are unclear.
• BNG software cannot account for all site-specific factors: Local biodiversity priorities, ecological connectivity, and land management history still require human oversight.

Verdict: Technology aids consistency and efficiency, but BNG still requires professional validation to ensure accurate compliance.

Misconception #3: “Drones and remote sensing make on-site surveys unnecessary”

The Truth: Remote sensing works best alongside field surveys

With advancements in satellite imagery, LiDAR, and AI-driven habitat recognition, some believe that BNG assessments can be fully automated. However, field surveys remain critical.

Limitations of remote sensing for BNG:

• It cannot measure habitat quality alone: Satellites and drones provide high-resolution images, but only on-the-ground surveys can assess factors like species composition and habitat condition.
• BNG offset sites still need verification: Even if an offsite habitat bank is mapped digitally, on-site checks ensure it meets the promised BNG uplift.
• Fine-scale ecological changes are difficult to detect remotely: While remote sensing identifies large-scale trends, subtle changes (e.g., invasive species, soil degradation) still require fieldwork.

Verdict: Drones and satellite data enhance assessments but cannot replace ecologist-led surveys.