Landscape consequences of aggregation rules for functional equivalence in compensatory mitigation programs

• DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13084
• Publication Date: 2018-01-26T14:16:12Z
• Authors: Francesco Accatino; Irena F. Creed; Marian Weber
• Keywords: 0106 biological sciences; function; Conservation of Natural Resources; restoration; [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio]; area;compensation;ecosystem services;equivalence;function;restoration;wetland; equivalence; area; Biodiversity; 15. Life on land; 01 natural sciences; wetland; 6. Clean water; [SHS]Humanities and Social Sciences; Alberta; [SDV] Life Sciences [q-bio]; compensation; 13. Climate action; Wetlands; [SHS] Humanities and Social Sciences; ecosystem services; Ecosystem

Abstract Mitigation and offset programs designed to compensate for ecosystem function losses due development must balance from affected ecosystems with gains in restored ecosystems. Aggregation rules applied functions assess site equivalence are based on implicit assumptions about the substitutability of among sites can profoundly influence distribution landscape. We investigated consequences aggregation wetland offsets Beaverhill watershed Alberta, Canada. considered fate 3 functions: hydrology, water purification, biodiversity. set up an affect‐and‐offset algorithm simulate effect offsets. Cobenefits trade‐offs constraints posed by quantity quality restorable resulted a redistribution between wetlands. Hydrology purification were positively correlated one another negatively biodiversity function. Weighted‐average did not replace proportion their weights. Rules prioritizing led more monofunctional wetlands landscapes. The minimum rule, which score was equal worst performing function, promoted multifunctional maximum best Because functions, no‐net‐loss objectives multiple should be constructed within landscape context. Based our results, we suggest criteria design no net loss context include concepts substitutability, cobenefits trade‐offs, constraints, heterogeneity, precautionary principle.