International audienceThe impacts of urban growth on biodiversity vary according to the form and the intensity of urbanisation.However, there is a lack of knowledge about the consequences of the type of urban structure (e.g. mono-centric vs polycentric), the shape of urban boundaries, the local density of residential development, on the habitats of wildlife species. In this context, this paper focuses on the relationship between forms ofurbanisation and functional connectivity of ecological habitats. In the urban region of Besanc¸ on (easternFrance), three emblematic protected species were selected to represent forest mammals. From the initialstate describing current land cover, five prospective residential development scenarios were simulated,corresponding to the form currently most commonly found (e.g. compact development, transit-orienteddevelopment, polycentric development). For each scenario, we also simulate the volume of traffic on theroad network to allow for the barrier effect of roads on habitat connectivity. Then, for each developmentscenario, we model the functional connectivity of habitats of the various target species using landscapegraphs. Results show that compact city maintains more functional connectivity for all the species con-sidered whereas urban sprawl leads to much more marked impacts. Moderately compact and regulatedperiurban scenarios have intermediate levels of impact. The transit-oriented development scenario pro-duces specific impact values according to the species. An interesting point is that the decline in functionalconnectivity of forest habitats is more due to increased traffic than residential development proper. Thisoutlines the relevance of integrated models for simulating both land use and transport at a fine scale

Background: Equity seems inherent to the pursuance of universal health coverage (UHC), but it is not a natural consequence of it. We explore how the multidimensional concept of equity has been approached in key global UHC policy documents, as well as in country-level UHC policies. Methods: We analysed a purposeful sample of UHC reports and policy documents both at global level and in two Western African countries (Benin and Senegal). We manually searched each document for its use and discussion of equity and related terms. The content was summarised and thematically analysed, in order to comprehend how these concepts were understood in the documents. We distinguished between the level at which inequity takes place and the origin or types of inequities. Results: Most of the documents analysed do not define equity in the first place, and speak about "health inequities" in the broad sense, without mentioning the dimension or type of inequity considered. Some dimensions of equity are ambiguousespecially coverage and financing. Many documents assimilate equity to an overall objective or guiding principle closely associated to UHC. The concept of equity is also often linked to other concepts and values (social justice, inclusion, solidarity, human rightsbut also to efficiency and sustainability). Regarding the levels of equity most often considered, access (availability, coverage, provision) is the most often quoted dimension, followed by financial protection. Regarding the types of equity considered, those most referred to are socioeconomic , geographic, and gender-based disparities. In Benin and Senegal, geographic inequities are mostly pinpointed by UHC policy documents, but concrete interventions mostly target the poor. Overall, the UHC policy of both countries are quite similar in terms of their approach to equity. Conclusions: While equity is widely referred to in global and country-specific UHC policy documents, its multiple dimensions results in a rather rhetorical utilisation of the concept. Whereas equity covers various levels and types, many global UHC documents fail to define it properly and to comprehend the breadth of the concept. Consequently, perhaps, country-specific policy documents also use equity as a rhetoric principle, without sufficient consideration for concrete ways for implementation.

No abstract

ContextLandscape graphs are widely used to model networks of habitat patches. As they require little input data, they are particularly suitable for supporting conservation decisions (and decisions about other issues as e.g. disease spread) taken by land planners. However, it may be problematic to use these methods in operational contexts without validating them with empirical data on species or communities. ObjectivesSince little is known about methodological alternatives for coupling landscape graphs with biological data, we have made an exhaustive review of these methods to analyze links between the main purposes of the studies, the way landscape graphs are constructed and used, the type of field data, and the way these data are integrated into the analysis. MethodsWe systematically describe a corpus of 71 scientific papers dealing with terrestrial species, with particular emphasis on methodological choices and contexts of the studies. ResultsDespite a great variability of types of biological data and coupling strategies, our analyses reveal a dichotomy according to the objective of the studies, between (i) approaches aimed at improving ecological knowledge, mainly based on land-cover maps and using biological data to test the influence of landscape connectivity on biological responses, and (ii) approaches with an operational aim, in which biological data are directly integrated into the graph construction and assuming a positive effect of connectivity. ConclusionsBeyond these main contrasts, the review shows that landscape graphs can benefit from field data of different types at varying scales. The great variability of approaches adopted reveals the flexible nature of these tools.