Get access

Evaluating Restoration Success of Frequently Implemented Compensation Measures: Results and Demands for Control Procedures

Authors

  • Sabine Tischew,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department for Nature Conservation and Landscape Planning, University of Applied Sciences Anhalt (FH), Strenzfelder Allee 28, 06406 Bernburg, Germany
      S. Tischew, email tischew@loel.hs-anhalt.de
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Annett Baasch,

    1. Department for Nature Conservation and Landscape Planning, University of Applied Sciences Anhalt (FH), Strenzfelder Allee 28, 06406 Bernburg, Germany
    2. Institute of Biology/Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg, Am Kirchtor 1, 06108 Halle, Germany
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mareike K. Conrad,

    1. Department for Nature Conservation and Landscape Planning, University of Applied Sciences Anhalt (FH), Strenzfelder Allee 28, 06406 Bernburg, Germany
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Anita Kirmer

    1. Department for Nature Conservation and Landscape Planning, University of Applied Sciences Anhalt (FH), Strenzfelder Allee 28, 06406 Bernburg, Germany
    Search for more papers by this author

S. Tischew, email tischew@loel.hs-anhalt.de

Abstract

This article summarizes the results of a comprehensive evaluation of frequently implemented compensation measures used to counteract environmental impacts in the course of road construction. Examination of planning documents and compensation areas revealed that 26 of 57 compensation areas had to be excluded from further evaluations either because of insufficient goal setting with regard to habitat functions and/or poor descriptions of the measures, unrecognizable implementation, or because the measures were simply not carried out. In the remaining 31 compensation areas, we examined 119 compensation sites and analyzed their success in relation to 326 defined compensation goals. Only 33% of the goals set were fully or mostly achieved, whereas 67% were reached only partly, mostly not, or not at all. Deficiency inquiries and analyses revealed that (1) in addition to unsuitable site conditions, improper implementation methods as well as deficient follow-up management proved to be of significant influence for goal achievement and (2) a considerable portion of the pitfalls could be avoided by faster integration of state-of-the-art ecological restoration practices. Therefore, we recommend a standardized control procedure, which includes planning, implementation, as well as monitoring of goal achievement and follow-up management for maintenance of target conditions to improve compensation success. This should help to avoid planning and implementation errors, detect flawed development, and correct it in time.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary