Environmental compensation should address negative impacts from human activities on nature, including loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, successful compensation, achieving no net loss, requires broad quantitative information on different types of losses and gains. We find that the scope of compensatory schemes varies in what is considered compensable, which makes it challenging to apply a conceptual approach consistently across schemes with different needs. We propose a flexible yet structured framework for determining which values should be compensated and how. Our framework focuses specifically on habitat deterioration and is illustrated with a case study involving loss of eelgrass habitat. The framework helps identify compensation needs and selects among suitable compensation options, merging science-based information with normative issues and local concerns. By integrating the ecosystem services cascade model, it encompasses aspects from biodiversity structure to human wellbeing. The framework prefers in-kind compensation because this targets the structure level and thus meets compensation needs in all subsequent levels of the cascade model; further, it is more likely to capture non-instrumental values (i.e. in nature) and reduce exposure to uncertainty. We highlight the importance of spatial aspects of ecosystem functions, services and their subsequent impacts on wellbeing. Although our selection hierarchy assumes a “similar and nearby” principle for habitat restoration (preference for in-kind/on-site), this criterion is not universal. We underscore the hierarchy’s implicit normative assumptions and suggest that apparent disagreement about who should benefit may be traced to an unresolved conflict between egalitarianism and utilitarianism.

环境补偿应解决人类活动对自然的负面影响，包括生物多样性和生态系统服务的丧失。然而，成功的补偿，没有实现净损失，需要关于不同类型的损失和收益的广泛的定量信息。我们发现补偿计划的范围在被认为是可补偿的方面有所不同，这使得在具有不同需求的计划中一致地应用概念方法具有挑战性。我们提出了一个灵活但结构化的框架来确定应该补偿哪些价值以及如何补偿。我们的框架特别关注栖息地恶化，并通过一个涉及鳗草栖息地丧失的案例研究来说明。该框架有助于确定补偿需求并在合适的补偿选项中进行选择，将基于科学的信息与规范性问题和当地关注相结合。通过整合生态系统服务级联模型，它涵盖了从生物多样性结构到人类福祉的各个方面。该框架更喜欢实物补偿，因为它针对结构层级，从而满足级联模型所有后续层级的补偿需求；此外，它更有可能捕捉非工具价值（即本质上）并减少对不确定性的暴露。我们强调生态系统功能、服务的空间方面的重要性及其对福祉的后续影响。尽管我们的选择层次假设了栖息地恢复的“相似和附近”原则（首选实物/现场），但该标准并不普遍。我们强调等级制度隐含的规范假设，并建议关于谁应该受益的明显分歧可以追溯到平等主义和功利主义之间未解决的冲突。