Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 10, pp 2261–2278 | Cite as

Measuring landscape connectivity: On the importance of within-patch connectivity

  • Ariel G. Spanowicz
  • Jochen A. G. JaegerEmail author
Research Article



Many connectivity metrics have been used to measure the connectivity of a landscape and to evaluate the effects of land-use changes and potential mitigation measures. However, there are still gaps in our understanding of how to accurately quantify landscape connectivity.


A number of metrics only measure between-patch connectivity, i.e. the connectivity between different habitat patches, which can produce misleading results. This paper demonstrates that the inclusion of within-patch connectivity is important for accurate results.


The behavior of two metrics is compared: the Connectance Index (CONNECT), which measures only between-patch connectivity, and the effective mesh size (meff), which includes both within-patch and between-patch connectivity. The connectivity values of both metrics were calculated on a set of simulated landscapes. Twenty cities were then added to these landscapes to calculate the resulting changes in connectivity.


We found that when using CONNECT counter-intuitive results occurred due to not including within-patch connectivity, such as scenarios where connectivity increased with increasing habitat loss and fragmentation. These counter-intuitive results were resolved when using meff. For example, landscapes with low habitat amount may be particularly sensitive to urban development, but this is not reflected by CONNECT.


Applying misleading results from metrics like CONNECT can have detrimental effects on natural ecosystems, because reductions in within-patch connectivity by human activities are neglected. Therefore, this paper provides evidence for the crucial need to consider the balance between within-patch connectivity and between-patch connectivity when calculating the connectivity of landscapes.


Between-patch connectivity CONNECT Connectance Connectedness Effective mesh size Fragmentation per se Habitat connectivity Inter-patch connectivity Intra-patch connectivity Landscape metrics 



We are very thankful to Nicolas Dziemian for writing code in Excel for automated calculation of meff for large numbers of landscapes and to Naghmeh Nazarnia, Marco Burelli, Jonathan Cole, and Judith Plante for helpful comments and technical support.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_881_MOESM1_ESM.doc (136 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 136 kb)


  1. Bierwagen BG (2005) Predicting ecological connectivity in urbanizing landscapes. Environ Plan B 32(5):763–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bierwagen BG (2007) Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: the importance of habitat configuration, urban area size, and dispersal. Urban Ecosyst 10(1):29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan L, Hillel O, Elmqvist T, Werner P, Holman N, Mader A, Calcaterra E (2014) User’s Manual on the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity (also known as the City Biodiversity Index). Singapore: National Parks Board, Singapore.
  5. Deslauriers MR, Asgary A, Nazarnia N, Jaeger JAG (2018) Implementing the connectivity of natural areas in cities as an indicator in the City Biodiversity Index (CBI) (+ Corrigendum). Ecolog Indic 94:99–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ESRI (2015) ArcGIS 10.3.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fahrig L (2017) Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fletcher RJ, Burrell NS, Reichert BE, Vasudev D, Austin JD (2016) Divergent perspectives on landscape connectivity reveal consistent effects from genes to communities. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep 1(2):67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fonseca CR, Ganade G (1996) Asymmetries, compartments and null interactions in an Amazonian ant-plant community. J Anim Ecol 65(3):339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardner RH (1999) RULE: map generation and a spatial analysis program. In: Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 280–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner RH (2017) Characterizing categorical map patterns using neutral landscape models. In: Gergel SE, Turner MG (eds) Learning landscape ecology: a practical guide to concepts and techniques. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Girvetz EH, Greco SE (2007) How to define a patch: a spatial model for hierarchically delineating organism-specific habitat patches. Landsc Ecol 22:1131–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodwin BJ (2003) Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landsc Ecol 18:687–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaeger JAG (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 15(2):115–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaeger J (2002) Landschaftszerschneidung. Eine transdisziplinäre Studie gemäß dem Konzept der Umweltgefährdung [Landscape fragmentation. A transdisciplinary study according to the concept of environmental threat]. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, p 447Google Scholar
  17. Jaeger JAG (2007) Effects of the configuration of road networks on landscape connectivity. In: Irwin CL, Nelson D, McDermott KP (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on ecology and transportation (ICOET). Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, pp 267–280Google Scholar
  18. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landsc Ecol 23:879–890Google Scholar
  19. Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA (2013) Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landsc Ecol 18:165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laita A, Kotiaho JS, Mönkkönen M (2011) Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? Landsc Ecol 26(7):951–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leitão AB, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K (2006) Measuring landscapes: A planner’s handbook. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Magle SB, Theobald DM, Crooks KR (2009) A comparison of metrics predicting landscape connectivity for a highly interactive species along an urban gradient in Colorado, USA. Landsc Ecol 24(2):267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Malanson GP (2003) Dispersal across continuous and binary representations of landscapes. Ecol Model 169:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
  26. Merriam G (1984) Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. In: Brandt J and Agger P (eds) Proceedings of the first international seminar on methodology in landscape ecological research and planning, Roskilde Universitetsforlag GeuRuc, Roskilde, vol. I, pp 5–15Google Scholar
  27. Moser B, Jaeger JAG, Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Eiselt B (2007) Modification of the effective mesh size for measuring landscape fragmentation to solve the boundary problem. Landsc Ecol 22(3):447–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landsc Ecol 21:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92(4):847–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Riitters K, Vogt P, Soille P, Estreguil C (2009) Landscape patterns from mathematical morphology on maps with contagion. Landsc Ecol 24:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roch L, Jaeger JAG (2014) Monitoring an ecosystem at risk: what is the degree of grassland fragmentation in the Canadian Prairies? (+ Corrigendum). Environ Monit Assess 186:2505–2534 + 3299–3301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stoddard ST (2010) Continuous versus binary representations of landscape heterogeneity in spatially-explicit models of mobile populations. Ecol Model 221:2409–2414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68(3):571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000a) How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landsc Ecol 15:633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000b) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90(1):7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel JN (2001) Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 67:650–662Google Scholar
  38. Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yodzis P (1980) The connectance of real ecosystems. Nature 284:544–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ziółkowska E, Ostapowicz K, Radeloff VC, Kuemmerle T (2014) Effects of different matrix representations and connectivity measures on habitat network assessments. Landsc Ecol 29:1551–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography, Planning and EnvironmentConcordia University MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Loyola Sustainability Research Centre, Concordia University MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations