Abstract
Mitigation banking is part of the ever-expanding global environmental market framework that aims to balance negative approved anthropogenic impacts versus third-party provided ecosystem benefits, sold in the form of credits. Given the need to conserve freshwater biodiversity and habitat, banking has received great traction for freshwater species and systems. While extensive reviews and studies have been conducted on evaluating if equivalency between impacts and offset can be achieved, there is almost no research being done on the way credits are being generated and banks are managed to inform future best practice and policy. Synthesizing banking data through cluster analyzes from 26 banks in the United States generating credits for freshwater species and associated systems, we show two generalizable approaches: removing barriers and targeting whole communities. Both address crucial freshwater conservation needs but come with their risks and caveats. Using common characteristics and management practices founded in federal and district level guidance within these two groups, we showcase and conclude that credit generation via barrier removal can be at risk of granting credit generation for too large of an area, leading to over-crediting. Banks targeting whole freshwater communities and accounting for landscape-level interactions and influences can potentially be detrimental for species on an individual level and large-scale credit availability as well as transfer can incentivize non-compliance with the mitigation hierarchy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data and additional material are available through contacting the authors, freely available on RIBITS and in the supplemental material or through figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22864019.
References
Algera DA, Neigel KL, Kosziwka K, Abrams AEI, Glassman DM, Bennett JR, Cooke SJ, Lapointe NWR (2022) Assessing a proponent-driven process for endangered species threat mitigation: Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, American Eel, and hydropower. FACETS 7:153–173. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0058
Alvarado-Quesada I, Hein L, Weikard H-P (2014) Market-based mechanisms for biodiversity conservation: a review of existing schemes and an outline for a global mechanism. Biodivers Conserv 23(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0598-x
Barbé H, Frascaria-Lacoste N (2021) Integrating ecology into land planning and development: between disillusionment and hope, questioning the relevance and implementation of the mitigation hierarchy. Sustainability 13(22):12726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212726
Barry S, Elith J (2006) Error and uncertainty in habitat models. J Appl Ecol 43(3):413–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01136.x
Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, Mumby PJ, Lovelock CE (2016) The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecol Appl 26(4):1055–1074. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1077
Bednarek AT (2001) Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environ Manag 27(6):803–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010189
Beechie TJ, Sear DA, Olden JD, Pess GR, Buffington JM, Moir H, Roni P, Pollock MM (2010) Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience 60(3):209–222. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.7
Bekessy SA, Wintle BA, Lindenmayer DB, Mccarthy MA, Colyvan M, Burgman MA, Possingham HP (2010) The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank. Conserv Lett 3(3):151–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00110.x
BenDor TK, Guo T, Yates AJ (2013) Optimal advanced credit releases in ecosystem service markets. Environ Manag 53(3):496–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0219-1
BenDor T, Sholtes J, Doyle MW (2009) Landscape characteristics of a stream and wetland mitigation banking program. Ecol Appl 19(8):2078–2092. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1803.1
Boisvert V (2015) Conservation banking mechanisms and the economization of nature: an institutional analysis. Ecosyst Serv 15:134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.004
Bouwes N, Bennett S, Wheaton J (2016) Adapting adaptive management for testing the effectiveness of stream restoration: an intensively monitored watershed example. Fisheries 41(2):84–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2015.1127806
Bradford MJ (2017) Accounting for uncertainty and time lags in equivalency calculations for offsetting in aquatic resources management programs. Environ Manag 60(4):588–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0892-6
Brinson MM, Malvárez AI (2002) Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats. Environ Conserv 29(2):115–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892902000085
Bull JW, Hardy MJ, Moilanen A, Gordon A (2015) Categories of flexibility in biodiversity offsetting, and their implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 192:522–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.003
Bull JW, Sonter LJ, Gordon A, Maron M, Narain D, Reside AE, Sánchez LE, Shumway N, von Hase A, Quétier F (2022) Quantifying the “avoided” biodiversity impacts associated with economic development. Front Ecol Environ 20(6):370–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2496
Burström F, Korhonen J (2001) Municipalities and industrial ecology: reconsidering municipal environmental management. Sustain Dev 9(1):36–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.154
Chin A, Ruppert J, Shrestha N, Fortin M-J (2022) Urban avian conservation planning using species functional traits and habitat suitability mapping. Land 11(10):1831. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101831
Convertino M, Baker KM, Vogel JT, Lu C, Suedel B, Linkov I (2013) Multi-criteria decision analysis to select metrics for design and monitoring of sustainable ecosystem restorations. Ecol Indic 26:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.005
Dey CJ, Rego AI, Bradford MJ, Clarke KD, McKercher K, Mochnacz NJ, Paiva AD, Ponader K, Robichaud L, Winegardner AK, Berryman C, Blanchfield PJ, Boston CM, Braun D, Brownscombe JW, Burbidge C, Campbell S, Cassidy A, Chu C, Koops MA (2021) Research priorities for the management of freshwater fish habitat in Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 78(11):1744–1754. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2021-0002
Doka SE, Minns CK, Valere BG, Cooke SJ, Portiss RJ, Sciscione TF, Rose A (2022) An ecological accounting system for integrated aquatic planning and habitat banking with case study on the Toronto waterfront, Ontario, Canada. Environ Manag 69(5):952–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01531-5
Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Harbor JM, Grant GS (2003) Dam removal in the United States: emerging needs for science and policy. Eos, Trans Am Geophys Union 84(4):29. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003EO040001
Droste N, Alkan Olsson J, Hanson H, Knaggård Å, Lima G, Lundmark L, Thoni T, Zelli F (2022) A global overview of biodiversity offsetting governance. J Environ Manag 316:115231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115231
Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z-I, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard A-H, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81(02):163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
Environmental Law Institute. (2016). Assessing stream mitigation guidelines at the corps district and state levels. environmental protection agency. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149-0035
Farag AM, Larson DL, Stauber J, Stahl R, Isanhart J, McAbee K, Walsh CJ (2017) Restoration of contaminated ecosystems: adaptive management in a changing climate. Restor Ecol 25(6):884–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12583
Franklin PA, Sykes J, Robbins J, Booker DJ, Bowie S, Gee E, Baker CF (2022) A national fish passage barrier inventory to support fish passage policy implementation and estimate river connectivity in New Zealand. Ecol Inform 71:101831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101831
French McCay D, Rowe J (2003) Habitat restoration as mitigation for lost production at multiple trophic levels. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 264:233–247. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps264233
Gebregiorgis AS, Hossain F (2012) Hydrological risk assessment of old dams: case study on Wilson dam of Tennessee river basin. J Hydrol Eng 17(1):201–212. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000410
Gilby BL, Olds AD, Duncan CK, Ortodossi NL, Henderson CJ, Schlacher TA (2020) Identifying restoration hotspots that deliver multiple ecological benefits. Restor Ecol 28(1):222–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13046
Gonçalves B, Marques A, Soares AMVDM, Pereira HM (2015) Biodiversity offsets: from current challenges to harmonized metrics. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.008
Gornish ES, Roche LM (2018) The value of cooperative extension for involving society in restoration and conservation: cooperative extension partnership opportunities. Restor Ecol 26(6):1051–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12861
Grimm M (2020) Conserving biodiversity through offsets? Findings from an empirical study on conservation banking. J Nat Conserv 57:125871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125871
Hale R, Swearer SE (2016) When good animals love bad restored habitats: how maladaptive habitat selection can constrain restoration. J Appl Ecol 54(5):1478–1486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12829
Hallett CS, Valesini FJ, Clarke KR, Hesp SA, Hoeksema SD (2012) Development and validation of fish-based, multimetric indices for assessing the ecological health of Western Australian estuaries. Estuar, Coast Shelf Sci 104–105:102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.03.006
Hanson DA, Britney EM, Earle CJ, Stewart TG (2013) Adapting Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) to assess environmental loss and compensatory restoration following severe forest fires. For Ecol Manag 294:166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.12.032
Hart DD, Poff NL (2002) A special section on dam removal and river restoration. BioScience 52(8):653. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0653:ASSODR]2.0.CO;2
Hein T, Schwarz U, Habersack H, Nichersu I, Preiner S, Willby N, Weigelhofer G (2016) Current status and restoration options for floodplains along the Danube River. Sci Total Environ 543:778–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.073
Hoggart S, Hawkins SJ, Bohn K, Airoldi L, van Belzen J, Bichot A, Bilton DT, Bouma TJ, Colangelo MA, Davies AJ, Ferrario F, Firth LB, Galván C, Hanley M, Heurtefeux H, Lara JL, Rodriguez IL, Maza M, Eizaguirre BO, … Thompson RC (2015). Chapter 4 - Ecological approaches to coastal risk mitigation. Coast Risk Manag Chang Clim, 171–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-397310-8.00004-x
Jacob C, Pioch S, Thorin S (2016) The effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy in environmental impact studies on marine ecosystems: a case study in France. Environ Impact Assess Rev 60:83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.04.001
King S, O’Hanley JR, Newbold LR, Kemp PS, Diebel MW (2017) A toolkit for optimizing fish passage barrier mitigation actions. J Appl Ecol 54(2):599–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12706
Konkol M (2015). Fuzzy agglomerative clustering. In: Rutkowski L, Korytkowski M, Scherer R, Tadeusiewicz R, Zadeh LA, Zurada JM (ed.), Artificial intelligence and soft computing (Vol. 9119, pp. 207–217). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19324-3_19
Latimer W, Hill D (2007) Mitigation banking: securing no net loss to biodiversity? A UK perspective. Plan Pract Res 22(2):155–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701584337
Lave R, Robertson MM, Doyle MW (2008) Why you should pay attention to stream mitigation banking. Ecol Restor 26(4):287–289
Levin PS, Stunz GW (2005) Habitat triage for exploited fishes: can we identify essential “Essential Fish Habitat? Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 64(1):70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2005.02.007
Liermann M, Roni P (2008) More sites or more years? Optimal study design for monitoring fish response to watershed restoration. North Am J Fish Manag 28(3):935–943. https://doi.org/10.1577/M06-175.1
Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hornik K, & Hubert M (2022). Cluster: “Finding Groups in Data”: Cluster Analysis Extended Rousseeuw et al. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cluster
Maron M, Ives CD, Kujala H, Bull JW, Maseyk FJF, Bekessy S, Gordon A, Watson JEM, Lentini PE, Gibbons P, Possingham HP, Hobbs RJ, Keith DA, Wintle BA, Evans MC (2016) Taming a wicked problem: resolving controversies in biodiversity offsetting. BioScience 66(6):489–498. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw038
McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM (2009) Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manag 45(1):165–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9396-3
McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM (2010) Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manag 45(1):165–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9396-3
McLaughlin RL, Smyth ERB, Castro-Santos T, Jones ML, Koops MA, Pratt TC, Vélez-Espino L-A (2012) Unintended consequences and trade-offs of fish passage. Fish Fish 14(4):580–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12003
McManamay RA, Perkin JS, & Jager HI (2019). Commonalities in stream connectivity restoration alternatives: an attempt to simplify barrier removal optimization. Ecosphere, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2596
Moreno-Mateos D, Alberdi A, Morriën E, Van Der Putten WH, Rodríguez-Uña A, Montoya D (2020) The long-term restoration of ecosystem complexity. Nat Ecol Evolution 4(5):676–685. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1154-1
Müllner D (2011). Modern hierarchical, agglomerative clustering algorithms. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2378
Nagel AC, Ptak T (2022) Approaching obsolescence? A multi-criteria analysis of high-risk dams in the United States Pacific Northwest. Int J Water Resour Dev 38(2):217–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2020.1856050
Palmer MA, Filoso S (2009) Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325(5940):575–576. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172976
Pearce D (2004). Environmental market creation: saviour or oversell? Port Econ J, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-004-0034-y
Pess GR, Quinn TP, Gephard SR, Saunders R (2014) Re-colonization of Atlantic and Pacific rivers by anadromous fishes: linkages between life history and the benefits of barrier removal. Rev Fish Biol Fish 24(3):881–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-013-9339-1
Poplar-Jeffers IO, Petty JT, Anderson JT, Kite SJ, Strager MP, Fortney RH (2009) Culvert replacement and stream habitat restoration: implications from brook trout management in an Appalachian watershed, U.S.A. Restor Ecol 17(3):404–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100x.2008.00396.x
Putt AE, Ramos‐Espinoza D, Braun DC, Korman J (2022) Methods for estimating abundance and associated uncertainty from passive count technologies. North Am J Fish Manag 42(1):96–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10719
Randall RG, Minns CK (2002) Comparison of a Habitat Productivity Index (HPI) and an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for measuring the productive capacity of fish habitat in nearshore areas of the great lakes. J Gt Lakes Res 28(2):240–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0380-1330(02)70580-7
Reichert P, Omlin M (1997) On the usefulness of overparameterized ecological models. Ecol Model 95(2–3):289–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(96)00043-9
Reid AJ, Carlson AK, Creed IF, Eliason EJ, Gell PA, Johnson PTJ, Kidd KA, MacCormack TJ, Olden JD, Ormerod SJ, Smol JP, Taylor WW, Tockner K, Vermaire JC, Dudgeon D, Cooke SJ (2019) Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol Rev 94(3):849–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12480
Reid MA, Reid MC, Thoms MC (2015) Ecological significance of hydrological connectivity for wetland plant communities on a dryland floodplain river, MacIntyre River, Australia. Aquat Sci 78(1):139–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-015-0414-7
Reiss KC, Hernandez E, Brown MT (2009) Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: a Florida case study. Wetlands 29(3):907–918. https://doi.org/10.1672/08-148.1
RIBITS. (2023). Ribits.Ops.Usace.Army.Mil. https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=107:2
Rohde S, Hostmann M, Peter A, Ewald KC (2006) Room for rivers: an integrative search strategy for floodplain restoration. Landsc Urban Plan 78(1–2):50–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.006
Roni P, Hall JE, Drenner SM, Arterburn D (2019). Monitoring the effectiveness of floodplain habitat restoration: a review of methods and recommendations for future monitoring. WIREs Water, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1355
Ruhl JB, Gregg J (2001) Integrating ecosystem services into environmental law: a case study of wetlands mitigation banking. Stanf Environ Law J 20:365
Ruiz-Jaen MC, Mitchell Aide T (2005) Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restor Ecol 13(3):569–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00072.x
Salant NL, Schmidt JC, Budy P, Wilcock PR (2012) Unintended consequences of restoration: loss of riffles and gravel substrates following weir installation. J Environ Manag 109:154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.05.013
Serrouya R, Seip DR, Hervieux D, McLellan BN, McNay RS, Steenweg R, Heard DC, Hebblewhite M, Gillingham M, Boutin S (2019) Saving endangered species using adaptive management. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116(13):6181–6186. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816923116
Shahapure KR, Nicholas C (2020). Cluster quality analysis using silhouette score. In: IEEE 7th international conference on data science and advanced analytics (DSAA), 747–748. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSAA49011.2020.00096
Smith B, Clifford NJ, Mant J(2014) The changing nature of river restoration. WIREs Water 1(3):249–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1021
Søndergaard M, Jeppesen E (2007) Anthropogenic impacts on lake and stream ecosystems, and approaches to restoration: ecological quality of lakes and streams. J Appl Ecol 44(6):1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01426.x
Specht H, Golding JD, Pero EM, Crane MT, Ortiz‐Calo W, McDevitt MC, Karlen JG, Branch JV, Hansen CP, Millspaugh JJ (2022). A framework for evaluating the implications of assumptions in broad conservation strategies. Conserv Sci Pract, 4(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12758
Stein ED (2000) PROFILE: wetland mitigation banking: a framework for crediting and debiting. Environ Manag 26(3):233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010084
Sun J, Galib SM, Lucas MC (2020) Are national barrier inventories fit for stream connectivity restoration needs? A test of two catchments. Water Environ J 34(S1):791–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12578
Teichert N, Borja A, Chust G, Uriarte A, Lepage M (2016) Restoring fish ecological quality in estuaries: Implication of interactive and cumulative effects among anthropogenic stressors. Sci Total Environ 542:383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.068
Teresa S (2009). Perpetual Stewardship Considerations For Compensatory Mitigation And Mitigation Banks | Stetson Law Review. Www2.Stetson.Edu. https://www2.stetson.edu/law-review/article/perpetual-stewardship-considerations-for-compensatory-mitigation-and-mitigation-banks/
Theis S, Poesch MS (2022) Assessing conservation and mitigation banking practices and associated gains and losses in the United States. Sustainability 14(11):6652. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116652
USACE. (2008). Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title33-vol3/xml/CFR-2012-title33-vol3-part332.xml
USACE & EPA (2008) Determining appropriate compensatory mitigation credit for dam removal projects in North Carolina. US Army Corps of Engineers & US Environmental Protection Agency, https://deq.nc.gov/media/4859/download
USACE, EPA, USFWS, USDA, MDNR, MDC, & MDT (2013). State of Missouri Stream Mitigation Method. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri Department of Transportation
Valavanis VD, Georgakarakos S, Kapantagakis A, Palialexis A, Katara I (2004) A GIS environmental modelling approach to essential fish habitat designation. Ecol Model 178(3–4):417–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.02.015
Wei T, Simko V (2021). corrplot: Visualization of a Correlation Matrix. https://cran.r-project.org/package=corrplot
Wende W, Herberg A, Herzberg A (2005) Mitigation banking and compensation pools: improving the effectiveness of impact mitigation regulation in project planning procedures. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 23(2):101–111. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765652
Widis DC, BenDor TK, Deegan M (2015) Prioritizing wetland restoration sites: a review and application to a large-scale coastal restoration program. Ecol Restor 33(4):358–377. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.33.4.358
Wilkinson J, Raepple J, Rossner R, Singler A, Moberg T, Kennedy K, Harold S (2017). Environmental markets and stream barrier removal an exploration of opportunities to restore freshwater connectivity through existing mitigation programs. https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/2017_Stream_Barrier_Removal_and_Mitigation_Report.pdf
zu Ermgassen SOSE, Baker J, Griffiths RA, Strange N, Struebig MJ, Bull JW (2019). The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv Lett, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12664
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by Mitacs Cluster Accelerate (RES0027784) and Converge (RES0021639) grants to M.P. We want to further acknowledge the role that open access data and scientific material plays in conducting research. Mitigation banking data is freely available through RIBITS, and scientific symbols used to enhance figures were provided through ian.umces.edu under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) agreement. We want to thank Richard Kavanagh and Jason Shpeley from Fisheries and Oceans for their constructive and invaluable feedback.
Author Contributions
ST: Conceptualization; Formal Analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project Administration; Visualization; Writing – Original Draft Preparation; Writing – Review & Editing. MP: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing – Review & Editing
Funding
Funding for this project was provided by Mitacs Cluster Accelerate (RES0027784) and Converge (RES0021639) grants to M.P.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Theis, S., Poesch, M. What Makes A Bank A Bank? Differences and Commonalities in Credit Calculation, Application, and Risks in Mitigation Banks Targeting Freshwater Fish Species and Associated Ecosystems. Environmental Management 73, 199–212 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01926-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01926-6