Biodiversity Scoring Methodology for the Built Environment

SymbioCitys develops ecological solutions for the built environment: nature-inclusive infrastructure, fauna-inclusive building measures, green roofs and facades, and biobased material systems. The company works at the intersection of urban ecology, assessment methodology and construction practice, together with knowledge partners including Wageningen University and Windesheim University of Applied Sciences.

SymbioCitys works from one conviction: biodiversity measures in the built environment should not stop at compliance. A measure only counts if it is ecologically suitable, measurable, maintainable and demonstrably effective in its real context.

THE CHALLENGE

Biodiversity is increasingly required in built-environment projects. Developers, municipalities, housing associations and infrastructure managers face demands from permits, subsidy schemes, tenders and sustainability reporting. What is missing is a defensible way to score it.

Two approaches dominate today. Each fails in a different way.

1. Counting measures. Points for installed objects: a bat box, a green roof, a hedge. Cheap and scalable across a portfolio, but it counts intentions rather than ecological function. A measure in the wrong place scores the same as one that works.

2. Full ecological survey. Measures what is actually present, and remains the reference standard. But it is expensive and slow, and cannot realistically be applied across hundreds of buildings or a whole development area.

There is a third possibility, currently more claim than method: inferring habitat quality from a limited set of recognisable indicator species. The presence of house sparrows, for example, may say something about underlying conditions - hedges, insect availability, shelter and nesting structure. Whether that inference holds, how strongly, and under which conditions, is an open question.

Handled carelessly it becomes a cheap substitute for field ecology, and the credibility of the whole method collapses with it. SymbioCitys wants the honest version: a scoring logic that states clearly what it can conclude, with how much uncertainty, and where field survey remains non-negotiable.

THE ASSIGNMENT

You will develop the scoring methodology. The central question: how can biodiversity performance in built-environment projects be scored transparently and defensibly, and what role can a limited indicator-species set play as an additional decision-support layer, with uncertainty made explicit and the limits of the method stated?

This is deliberately not a request to build the most accurate possible model. It is a request to build a model whose claims survive scrutiny - from an ecologist, from a client, and from a subsidy or permitting authority.

Where to put the weight. The proxy question (WP2) and the scoring model (WP3) are each substantial on their own. We do not expect both to be answered exhaustively in one placement. Tell us in your application which of the two you would make the centre of gravity, and we will scope the rest around it.

WORK PACKAGES

Scoped for six months. A shorter placement is deliberately not a compressed version of all five: three months covers WP1 and WP2 as a complete, self-contained study of what indicator-species inference can and cannot support.

WP1 - Criteria and state of the art (weeks 1-4)

Review existing biodiversity scoring, labelling and reporting instruments for the built environment: certification-scheme ecology credits, biodiversity net gain metrics, national and municipal instruments, and corporate sustainability reporting requirements. Extract what each actually measures, what it omits, and how it handles uncertainty. Define biodiversity performance for a built-environment project in measurable terms.

WP2 - Indicator and proxy layer (weeks 3-10)

Begin by establishing which monitoring and citizen-science datasets are actually accessible, at what spatial resolution and with what known biases - this is a real constraint and the first deliverable of this work package, not an assumption. Then assess under what conditions a limited indicator-species set carries information about underlying habitat conditions. Quantify the strength of the inference and, just as importantly, its failure modes.

WP3 - Scoring model (weeks 8-16)

Design a transparent scoring and weighting logic. Make criteria weighting explicit and contestable, propagate uncertainty through to the score, and run a sensitivity analysis. Define what the score can and cannot claim.

WP4 - Validation on real project contexts (weeks 12-20)

Apply the model to two or three real Dutch projects that publicly claim biodiversity performance: for example a renovation with installed fauna measures, a public-space project with an ecological ambition written into its tender, or a development area with a green programme. Contexts are assembled from public sources - permit documentation, tender texts, sustainability reporting, what is observable from public space - combined with open species data. Several candidate projects have already been identified.

The test is deliberately adversarial. A scoring model earns its credibility by distinguishing projects where measures function from projects where they are largely symbolic. Where the model cannot tell the difference, that is a finding about the model, not about the project. Compare the output against expert ecological judgement and identify where field survey remains non-negotiable.

WP5 - Reporting and application (weeks 16-24)

Translate the score into a reporting format usable by clients, permitting authorities, subsidy schemes and sustainability reporting. Define escalation rules: when a quick scan suffices, and when it must trigger field ecology. Produce a roadmap towards further validation and standardisation.

EXPECTED OUTPUTS

- A criteria set for biodiversity performance, with a gap analysis of existing instruments.

- An assessment of indicator-species inference, with quantified uncertainty and stated failure modes.

- A transparent scoring model with explicit, contestable weighting and a sensitivity analysis.

- A validation of the model against expert ecological judgement on real project contexts.

- A reporting template for clients, permitting and subsidy contexts.

- Escalation decision rules defining when field survey is required.

- A roadmap towards further scientific validation.

SCIENTIFIC ALIGNMENT

The assignment aligns with an ongoing Wageningen University knowledge-development track around a biodiversity framework and a building biodiversity score label. The InnoNext project focuses on the practical translation of that ambition: assessment criteria, a scoring logic with explicit uncertainty, reporting formats, and validation on real project contexts.

Wageningen University is not a formal partner in this InnoNext application. The alignment is a knowledge-development opportunity, and part of the value of this internship is connecting scientific reasoning with applied use. If you want your work to end up in something that is actually used, rather than only published, this is the point of the project.

WHAT SYMBIOCITYS OFFERS

- An open methodological question with a direct applied use, rather than a modelling exercise without a client.

- A validation set that is already identified. Dutch projects with publicly claimed biodiversity performance - including several where the measures look largely symbolic - form the test bed. No client permission or NDA is required, so the validation phase does not depend on a third party's schedule.

- An ecologist to argue with. Ecological expertise is available through SymbioCitys and its network to challenge the model's assumptions. A scoring model built without that pushback is plausible rather than grounded, and we would rather it were grounded.

- Alignment with an ongoing Wageningen University track on biodiversity in the built environment, and external sparring through the company's knowledge network.

- Weekly substantive supervision by the SymbioCitys host.

- A workspace at ZWINC in Zwolle, with a flex desk and workshop facilities.

- A strongly remote-friendly setup. This assignment is largely desk and data work, and hours are flexible.

- Work that becomes a service in development rather than a report that is filed away.

PUBLICATION

Outputs created during an InnoNext internship belong to the hosting company. That said, we are open to discussing publication of the methodological work, and expect to agree this before the placement starts rather than after.

HOW TO APPLY

In your application, we are most interested in one thing: where do you expect indicator-species inference to break down, and how would you test that? A short, sceptical answer tells us more than a long list of methods.

Start date and exact duration are agreed together. All InnoNext internships conclude by the end of July 2027.

INCLUSION

SymbioCitys welcomes applications from researchers of all backgrounds, nationalities and career paths. We are interested in how you reason about evidence and uncertainty, not in the route that brought you here. If you meet most of the essential requirements but not all of them, we still encourage you to apply - the methodological question in this project is genuinely open, and we expect to learn from whoever takes it on.

If you need any adjustment to the workspace, the schedule or the application process to participate on equal terms, let us know and we will arrange it.

Primary fields: quantitative ecology, environmental assessment, ecological data science, landscape ecology with a modelling focus, decision science or multi-criteria analysis, and sustainability metrics or indicator development.

Open to both InnoNext tracks. Deep Tech Talents (PhD candidates and postdocs) and Aspiring Innovators (students and graduates of EIT Label programmes) are both welcome. We select on how you reason about evidence, rather than on your title: relevant experience gained outside a formal research position counts as fully as academic status. Eligibility for the programme itself is set by InnoNext rather than by us.

Essential:

- a quantitative background in statistics, modelling or composite index construction;

- experience working with ecological or environmental datasets, including their gaps and biases;

- ability to quantify and communicate uncertainty rather than hide it;

- willingness to state where a method does not work - the value of this project depends on defensible limits.

Strong plus:

- multi-criteria decision analysis, weighting methods or composite indicator design;

- GIS, R or Python, spatial analysis or remote sensing;

- familiarity with certification schemes, biodiversity net gain metrics or corporate sustainability reporting;

- familiarity with European or Dutch ecological monitoring and citizen-science data sources;

- affinity with buildings, infrastructure, public space or asset management.

Not required:

- species identification at professional survey level - ecological expertise is provided through SymbioCitys and its knowledge network;

- production-level software development or commercial sales work.

The internship is based at ZWINC in Zwolle, the Netherlands. ZWINC is an innovation hub that offers a flex desk workspace and a workshop.

This assignment is largely desk and data work, so it is strongly remote-friendly. Working hours are flexible. Presence on site is most valuable during the validation phase, when the model is tested against real project contexts and expert ecological judgement.