Step 3: Determining and Quantifying Remediation Benefits



The purpose of this step of the equivalency process is to determine and quantify the benefits (credits) of created or improved habitats, resources, or resource services that can be used to offset quantified damage through complimentary or compensatory remediation. The process of determining and quantifying the benefits of remediation generally includes developing project-specific criteria for selecting remediation projects, identifying potential remediation projects based on those criteria, and evaluating the nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of benefits. Project benefits typically are quantified using the same quantification metrics as those developed for damage determination. When this is not possible, it may be necessary to use habitat or resource adjustment scalars to align remediation credits with damage metrics. In addition, remediation project-specific natural resource or service recovery pathways should be determined to understand the flow of benefits in the future. Sources of potential uncertainty, including likelihood of project success and sustainability in the future, should be explicitly addressed and incorporated into the analysis. In some cases, uncertainty can be evaluated through specifically designed pilot remediation projects.


Remediation options Evaluation of remediation options Remediation benefits Credits Uncertainty 


  1. European Commission. (2000). Managing Natura 2000 Sites - The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  2. European Commission. (2007). Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the ‘Habitats Directive’ 92/43/EEC, Brussels.Google Scholar
  3. eftec & IEEP. (2010). The use of market based instruments for biodiversity protection: The case of habitat banking. Report to the European Commission. In K. ten Kate, J. Treweek, & J. Extrom(Eds.), Collaboration with stratus consulting (now Abt Associates).Google Scholar
  4. Fishman, G. S. (1995). Monte carlo: Concepts, algorithms, and applications. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Metropolis, N., & Ulam, S. (1949). The monte carlo method. Journal of the American Statistical Association., 44(247), 335–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Strange, E., Galbraith, H., Bickel, S., Mills, D., Beltman, D., & Lipton, J. (2002). Environmental assessment. Determining ecological equivalence in service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restoration. Environmental Management, 29(2), 290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abt AssociatesBoulderUSA
  2. 2.RabouilletFrance

Personalised recommendations