BiospherePlanningCross-domain

Planning × Ecosystem Impact

How does development activity affect biodiversity on the Isle of Man?80,587 planning applications mapped to 723 H3 hexes and cross-referenced with species richness, tree cover, and ecosystem health scores from 9,370 species across 1,947 biosphere monitoring cells.

723

Planning Hexes

With planning data

80,587

Total Applications

Mapped to grid

Stressed Areas

Low health + high planning

Avg Health

Island-wide

Analysis

Ecosystem Health by Planning Intensity

Average health score grouped by number of planning applications per hex

Planning apps per hex → more apps does not necessarily mean lower health

Species Richness by Planning Intensity

Average unique species count grouped by planning activity level

Urban areas (high planning) often show higher species richness due to observer bias

Planning Activity vs Ecosystem Health (per hex)

100 hexes with 10+ planning applications, coloured by biome type

hotspot

forest

wetland

upland

farmland

coastal

urban

Bubble size = species richness. Larger bubbles have more recorded species.

Key Findings

•No strong negative correlation between planning activity and ecosystem health at hex level — heavily developed urban hexes average similar or slightly higher health scores than rural hexes.

•Observer bias is a significant factor — urban areas have more people recording species observations, inflating richness metrics.

•Genuinely stressed areas include Union Mills (health=15, 1,027 apps), Santon, and Curragh — where farmland meets suburban expansion with limited species recording.

•Approval rates vary — stressed hexes like Groudle (67.5%) and Santon (66.7%) show notably lower approval rates, suggesting planners may already be applying stricter controls.

⚠️

Potential Planning Stress Areas

15 hexes

Areas with low ecosystem health scores (<25) but significant recent planning activity (5+ applications in last 5 years). Low health may reflect genuine ecological pressure or limited biodiversity recording.

Location	Health	Planning Apps	Last 5yr	Approval
Union Mills	15	1,027	73	86.6%
Santon	15	27	9	66.7%
Curragh	15	22	6	68.2%
Jurby	17	119	10	85.7%
Groudle	17	40	7	67.5%
Andreas	18	224	32	80.8%
Santon	18	120	11	79.2%
Onchan	19	550	33	83.6%
Santon	19	230	31	78.3%
Ramsey	19	158	5	80.4%
Castletown	19	121	13	92.6%
Baldrine	19	90	7	77.8%
Castletown	19	85	15	85.9%
Kirk Michael	20	101	11	77.2%
Santon	20	77	7	68.8%

ℹ️Methodology

Spatial Mapping: Each planning application polygon from the IoM Government ArcGIS Feature Service is converted to a centroid point and mapped to an H3 resolution-8 hex cell (~0.74 km²). The same hex grid is used by the Biosphere Observatory for species monitoring.

Health Score: A weighted composite of species richness (35%), tree cover (20%), elevation diversity (10%), taxonomic group diversity (20%), and observation density (15%). Scores range 0–100. Low scores may reflect genuine ecological pressure or under-recording.

Limitations: Correlation does not imply causation. Urban areas may show higher health scores due to recording bias (more observers). Planning application counts include all types (approvals, refusals, withdrawals). Historical health trends are not yet available — current health scores are a snapshot.

Sources: IoM Government DEFA Planning & Building Control (OGL), GBIF species occurrence data, Hansen tree cover raster, SRTM30m elevation.

← Ecosystem Overview Fullscreen Map (with Planning layer) →Planning Applications →