Big Cities, Big Impacts? A spatial analysis of 3,335 ecological offsets in France since 2012

This paper assesses the French policy of mitigation hierarchy, with the aim of no net loss of biodiversity, by studying the geographical aspects of the application of the concept of ecological offsets in equivalence between losses and gains using spatialized data. We seek to know whether the dynamics of urban and interurban development (notably built-up and transport infrastructures) lead to a spatially integrated implementation of biodiversity offsets taking into account local characteristics and areas under pressure from land artificialization. Our main finding reveals that the majority of ecological offsets are generated by projects related to transport infrastructures (38%) and urban planning and construction projects (23%). However, if there are fewer, the ecological offsets of projects such as waste storage or energy development are mostly located in natural preserved areas, revealing a potential risk of non additionnality of offset measures and a risk that the private sector (through ecological offsets) will gradually replace the state in the protection of biodiversity. Our analysis also points out that despite the diversity of projects, habitats and protected species across France, there is a typical spatial layout profile of ecological offsets, pleading for a "one size fits all" offsetting in the French policy context of tenuous regulators' availability in time and competence level due to weakness of refresh training and downsizing of public services in the environment. This last result argues for a stronger control from environmental agencies between two tremendously tricky concepts of offsetting, the equivalence valuation methods and the adjustments coefficients (time delay and ecological risk), to drive ecological offsetting future decisions at local but above all regional- and national-level planning documents.

Monitoring the distribution of euro coins across borders (2002-2010): A dataset on the contents of 22,500 European citizens' wallet

The Euro Spatial Diffusion Observatory (ESDO) database records face-to-face questionnaire surveys conducted between March 2002 and December 2011 in France, in December 2003 in Belgium and in December 2005 in Germany. The data provides information on the coins contained in the respondents' wallets at the time of the survey, classified by country of origin and value. A series of control variables provide information on the socioeconomic profile of the respondents and the location of their place of residence at the NUTS 3 level. In total, more than 22,500 people opened their wallets and about 300,000 coins were registered allowing the tracking of euro coins circulation from their country of introduction on January 1, 2002 (or later for countries that joined the euro zone afterwards) to their place of observation at the time of the survey.

The provision of urban green space and its accessibility: Spatial data effects in Brussels

Urban green space (UGS) has many environmental and social benefits. UGS provision and access are increasingly considered in urban policies and must rely on data and indicators that can capture variations in the distribution of UGS within cities. There is no consensus about how UGS, and their provision and access, must be defined from different land use data types. Here we identify four spatial dimensions of UGS and critically examine how different data sources affect these dimensions and our understanding of their variation within a city region (Brussels). We compare UGS indicators measured from an imagery source (NDVI from Landsat), an official cadastre-based map, and the voluntary geographical information provided by OpenStreetMap (OSM). We compare aggregate values of provision and access to UGS as well as their spatial distribution along a centrality gradient and at neighbourhood scale. We find that there are strong differences in the value of indicators when using the different datasets, especially due to their ability to capture private and public green space. However we find that the interpretation of intra-urban spatial variations is not affected by changes in data source. Centrality in particular is a strong determinant of the relative values of UGS availability, fragmentation and accessibility, irrespective of datasets.