In previous compensation practice, the focus of compensation was usually solely on the impaired landscape function or the impaired protected asset. Compensation was deemed to have been achieved as soon as the mathematical balance between the impact and compensation was balanced. Other aspects such as the networking of compensatory measures or the orientation towards overarching objectives such as biodiversity or climate adaptation were hardly considered. Overarching network planning was also of little importance in the selection of compensation measures (cf. results from the spatial and stakeholder analysis). This approach led to isolated compensation areas that were unable to exploit their potential. In view of the limited supply of suitable compensation areas, their monofunctional use is unfavorable and exacerbates the scarcity of land in the region.

Compensation measures can be made more sustainable if they generate added value over and above the legal requirements. These can be functional added values where individual measures fulfil several landscape functions at the same time, for example nature conservation and flood retention. Spatial added values arise when different compensation measures are combined on one area or organized in network structures. Processual added values exist when stakeholders are involved at an early stage, procedures are optimized and compensation measures are implemented in a precautionary manner.

When planning compensation measures, many landscape requirements should be considered together from the outset and result in forward-looking, integrated planning.