Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 777–797 | Cite as

Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review

  • Katherine A. ZellerEmail author
  • Kevin McGarigal
  • Andrew R. Whiteley
Landscape Ecology in Review


Resistance surfaces are often used to fill gaps in our knowledge surrounding animal movement and are frequently the basis for modeling connectivity associated with conservation initiatives. However, the methods for quantifying resistance surfaces are varied and there is no general consensus on the appropriate choice of environmental data or analytical approaches. We provide a comprehensive review of the literature on this topic to highlight methods used and identify knowledge gaps. Our review includes 96 papers that parameterized resistance surfaces (sometimes using multiple approaches) for a variety of taxa. Data types used included expert opinion (n = 76), detection (n = 23), relocation (n = 8), pathway (n = 2), and genetic (n = 28). We organized the papers into three main analytical approaches; one-stage expert opinion, one-stage empirical, and two-stage empirical, each of which was represented by 43, 22, and 36 papers, respectively. We further organized the empirical approaches into five main resource selection functions; point (n = 16), matrix (n = 38), home range (n = 3), step (n = 1), and pathway (n = 1). We found a general lack of justification for choice of environmental variables and their thematic and spatial representation, a heavy reliance on expert opinion and detection data, and a tendency to confound movement behavior and resource use. Future research needs include comparative analyses on the choice of environmental variables and their spatial and thematic scales, and on the various biological data types used to estimate resistance. Comparative analyses amongst analytical processes is also needed, as well as transparency in reporting on uncertainty in parameter estimates and sensitivity of final resistance surfaces, especially if the resistance surfaces are to be used for conservation and planning purposes.


Connectivity Cost/friction surface Landscape permeability Corridors Resistant kernel Landscape pattern Wildlife 



We thank Brad Timm, Sandy Haire, Sam Cushman, Paul Beier and Erin Landguth for comments on a draft of this manuscript. This material is based on work partially supported by a Kaplan Graduate Award and a UMASS Graduate School Fellowship.

Supplementary material

10980_2012_9737_MOESM1_ESM.doc (99 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 98 kb)


  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modeling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartelt PE, Klaver RW, Porter WP (2010) Modeling amphibian energetics, habitat suitability, and movements of western toads, Anaxyrus (Bufo) boreas, across present and future landscapes. Ecol Model 221:2675–2686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beazley K, Smandych L, Snaith T, MacKinnon F, Austen-Smith P Jr, Dunker P (2005) Biodiversity considerations in conservation system planning: map-based approach for Nova Scotia, Canada. Ecol Appl 15:2192–2208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD (2008) Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv Biol 22:836–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beier P, Majka DR, Newell SL (2009) Uncertainty analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages. Ecol Appl 19:2067–2077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braunisch V, Segelbacher G, Hirzel AH (2010) Modelling functional landscape connectivity from genetic population structure: a new spatially explicit approach. Mol Ecol 19:3664–3678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broquet T, Ray N, Petit E, Fryxell JM, Burel F (2009) Genetic isolation by distance and landscape connectivity in the American marten (Martes americana). Landscape Ecol 21:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson D (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference (2nd edn). Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Chardon JP, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landscape Ecol 18:561–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chetkiewicz C-LB, Boyce MS (2009) Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. J Appl Ecol 46:1036–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark RW, Brown WS, Stechert R, Zamudio KR (2008) Integrating individual behavior and landscape genetics: the population structure of timber rattlesnake hibernacula. Mol Ecol 17:719–730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Clevenger AP, Wierzchowski J, Chruszcz B, Gunson K (2002) GIS-generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conserv Biol 16:503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Compton BW, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble LR (2007) A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conserv Biol 21:788–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coulon A, Cosson JF, Angibault JM, Cargnelutti B, Galan M, Morellet N, Petit E, Aulagnier S, Hewison AJM (2004) Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual-based approach. Mol Ecol 13:2841–2850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cushman SA (2010) Animal movement data: GPS telemetry, autocorrelation and the need for path-level analysis. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer, New York, pp 131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010) Spurious correlations and inference in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19:3592–3602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cushman SA, Lewis JS (2010) Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears. Landscape Ecol 25:1613–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene-flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 168:486–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cushman SA, Gutzweiler K, Evans JS, McGarigal K (2010) The gradient paradigm: a conceptual and analytical framework for landscape ecology. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer, New York, pp 83–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cushman S, McRae B, Adriaensen F, Beier P, Shirley M, Zeller KA (in press) Biological corridors. In: MacDonald D, Willis K (eds) Key topics in conservation biology, vol II. WileyGoogle Scholar
  21. Desrochers A, Bélisle M, Morand-Ferron J (2011) Integrating GIS and homing experiments to study avian movement costs. Landscape Ecol 26:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Emaresi G, Pellet J, Dubey S, Hirzel AH, Fumagalli L (2011) Landscape genetics of the Alpine newt (Mesotriton alpestris) inferred from a strip-based approach. Conserv Genet 12:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Epps CW, Wehausen JD, Bleich VC, Torres SG, Brashares JS (2007) Optimizing dispersal and corridor models using landscape genetics. J Appl Ecol 44:714–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Epps CW, Mutayoba BM, Gwin L, Brashares JS (2011) An empirical evaluation of the African elephant as a focal species for connectivity planning in East Africa. Divers Distrib 17:603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Estrada-Peña A (2003) The relationships between habitat topology, critical scales of connectivity and tick abundance Ixodes ricinus in a heterogeneous landscape in northern Spain. Ecography 26:661–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferreras P (2001) Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biol Conserv 100:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flamm RO, Weigle BL, Wright IE, Ross M, Aglietti S (2005) Estimation of manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) places and movement corridors using telemetry data. Ecol Appl 15:1415–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foltête JC, Berthier K, Cosson JF (2008) Cost distance defined by a topological function of landscape. Ecol Model 210:104–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foody GM (2002) Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens Environ 80:185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Freeman RC, Bell KP (2011) Conservation versus cluster subdivisions and implications for habitat connectivity. Landsc Urban Plan 101:30–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Graham CH (2001) Factors influencing movement patterns of keel-billed toucans in a fragmented tropical landscape in southern Mexico. Conserv Biol 15:1789–1798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ISI Web of Knowledge Thomson Reuters (2011) Web of Science. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from
  33. Janin A, Léna JP, Ray N, Delacourt C, Allemand P, Joly P (2009) Assessing landscape connectivity with calibrated cost-distance modelling: predicting common toad distribution in a context of spreading agriculture. J Appl Ecol 46:833–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jaquiéry J, Broquet T, Hirzel AH, Yearsley J, Perrin N (2011) Inferring landscape effects on dispersal from genetic distances: how far can we go? Mol Ecol 20:692–705Google Scholar
  35. Johnson CJ, Gillingham MP (2004) Mapping uncertainty: sensitivity of wildlife habitat ratings to expert opinion. J Appl Ecol 41:1032–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kautz R, Kawula R, Hoctor T, Comiskey J, Jansen D, Jennings D, Kasbohm J, Mazzzotti F, McBride R, Richardson L, Root K (2006) How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biol Conserv 130:118–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kindall JL, VanManen FT (2007) Identifying habitat linkages for American black bears in North Carolina, USA. J Wildl Manag 71:487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klug PE, Wisely SM, With KA (2011) Population genetic structure and landscape connectivity of the Eastern Yellowbelly Racer (Coluber constrictor flaviventris) in the contiguous tallgrass prairie of northeastern Kansas, USA. Landscape Ecol 26:281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koen EL, Garroway CJ, Wilson PJ, Bowman J (2010) The effect of map boundary on estimates of landscape resistance to animal movement. PLoS ONE 5:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koscinsky D, Yates AG, Handford P, Lougheed SC (2009) Effects of landscape and history on diversification of a montane, stream-breeding amphibian. J Biogeogr 36:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuemmerle T, Perzanowski K, Resit Akcakaya H, Beaudry F, Van Deelen TR, Parnikoza I, Khoyetskyy P, Waller DM, Radeloff VC (2011) Cost-effectiveness of strategies to establish a European bison metapopulation in the Carpathians. J Appl Ecol 48:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuroe M, Yamaguchi N, Kadoya T, Miyashita T (2011) Matrix heterogeneity affects population size of the harvest mice: Bayesian estimation of matrix resistance and model validation. Oikos 120:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laiolo P, Tella JL (2006) Landscape bioacoustics allow detection of the effects of habitat patchiness on population structure. Ecology 87:1203–1214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Landguth EL, Cushman SA, Schwartz MK, McKelvey KS, Murphy M, Luikart G (2010) Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19:4179–4191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. LaRue MA, Nielsen CK (2008) Modelling potential dispersal corridors for cougars in Midwestern North America using least-cost path methods. Ecol Model 212:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Loveland TR, Reed BC, Brown JF, Ohlen DO, Zhu Z, Yang L, Merchant JW (2000) Development of a global land cover characteristics database and IGBP DISCover from 1 km AVHRR data. Int J Remote Sens 21:1303–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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. Landscape Ecol 24:267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Manel S, Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2003) Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends Ecol Evol 18:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2010) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies, 2nd edn. Kluwer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  50. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McRae BH (2006) Isolation by resistance. Evolution 60:1551–1561PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. McRae BH, Beier P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc Nat Acad Sci 104:19885–19890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Michels E, Cottenie K, Neys L, DeGelas K, Coppin P, DeMeester L (2001) Geographical and genetic distances among zooplankton populations in a set of interconnected ponds: a plea for using GIS modelling of the effective geographical distance. Mol Ecol 10:1929–1938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Murphy MA, Dezzani R, Pilliod DS, Storfer A (2010) Landscape genetics of high mountain frog metapopulations. Mol Ecol 19:3634–3649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Newby JR (2011) Puma dispersal ecology in the central Rocky Mountains. Master’s thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, pp 1–111Google Scholar
  56. Nichol JE, Wong MS, Corlett R, Nichol DW (2010) Assessing avian habitat fragmentation in urban areas of Hong Kong (Kowloon) at high spatial resolution using spectral unmixing. Landsc Urban Plan 95:54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Brien D, Manseau M, Fall A, Fortin MJ (2006) Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol Conserv 130:70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pearce JL, Cherry K, Drielsma M, Ferrier S, Whish G (2001) Incorporating expert opinion and fine-scale vegetation mapping into statistical models of faunal distribution. J Appl Ecol 38:412–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pinto N, Keitt TH (2009) Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecol 24:253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pullinger MG, Johnson CJ (2010) Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified landscapes: evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information. Landscape Ecol 25:1547–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rabinowitz A, Zeller KA (2010) A range-wide model of landscape connectivity and conservation for the jaguar, Panthera onca. Biol Conserv 143:939–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rae C, Rothley K, Dragicevic S (2007) Implications of error and uncertainty for an environmental planning scenario: a sensitivity analysis of GIS-based variables in reserve design. Landsc Urban Plan 79:210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A (2010) The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landscape Ecol 25:519–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Richard Y, Armstrong DP (2010) Cost distance modelling of landscape connectivity and gap-crossing ability using radio-tracking data. J Appl Ecol 47:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Savage WK, Fremier AK, Shaffer HB (2010) Landscape genetics of alpine Sierra Nevada salamanders reveal extreme population subdivision in space and time. Mol Ecol 19:3301–3314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48:668–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schwartz MK, Copeland JP, Anderson NJ, Squires JR, Inman RM, McKelvey KS, Pilgrim KL, Waits LP, Cushman SA (2009) Wolverine gene flow across a narrow climatic niche. Ecology 90:3222–3232Google Scholar
  70. Seoane J, Bustamente J, Diaz-Delgado R (2005) Effect of expert opinion on the predictive ability of environmental models of bird distribution. Conserv Biol 19:512–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shirk AJ, Wallin DO, Cushman SA, Rica CG, Warheit KI (2010) Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new model selection framework. Mol Ecol 19:3603–3619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Short Bull RA, Cushman SA, Mace R, Chilton T, Kendall KC, Landguth EL, Schwartz MK, McKelvey K, Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2011) Why replication is so important in landscape genetics: American black bear in the Rocky Mountains. Mol Ecol 20:1092–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Singleton PH, Gaines WL, Lehmkuhl JF (2002) Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. Research Paper PNW-RP-549. U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  74. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin MJ, McRae BH, Scribner K (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19:3576–3591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stevens VM, Verkenne C, Vandewoestijne S, Wesselingh RA, Baguette M (2006) Gene flow and functional connectivity in the natterjack toad. Mol Ecol 15:2333–2344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sutcliffe OL, Bakkestuen V, Fry G, Stabbetorp OE (2003) Modelling the benefits of farmland restoration: methodology and application to butterfly movement. Landsc Urban Plan 63:15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thatcher CA, VanManen FT, Clark JD (2009) A habitat assessment for Florida panther population expansion into central Florida. J Mammal 90:918–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thompson CM, McGarigal K (2002) The influence of research scale on bald eagle habitat selection along the lower Hudson River, New York. Landscape Ecol 17:569–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vignieri SN (2005) Streams over mountains: influence of riparian connectivity on gene flow in the Pacific jumping mouse (Zapus trinotatus). Mol Ecol 14:1925–1937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wang YH, Yang KC, Bridgman CL, Lin LK (2008) Habitat suitability modelling to correlate gene flow with landscape connectivity. Landscape Ecol 23:989–1000Google Scholar
  81. Wang IJ, Savage WK, Shaffer B (2009) Landscape genetics and least-cost path analysis reveal unexpected dispersal routes in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Mol Ecol 18:1365–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wasserman TN, Cushman SA, Schwartz MK, Wallin DO (2010) Spatial scaling and multi-model inference in landscape genetics: Martes Americana in northern Idaho. Landscape Ecol 25:1601–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Watts K, Eycott AE, Handley P, Ray D, Humphrey JW, Quine CP (2010) Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: an approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks. Landscape Ecol 25:1305–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Worton BJ (1995) A convex hull-based estimator of home-range size. Biometrics 51:1206–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zimmermann F, Breitenmoser U (2007) Potential distribution and population size of the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in the Jura Mountains and possible corridors to adjacent ranges. Wildl Biol 13:406–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine A. Zeller
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kevin McGarigal
    • 1
  • Andrew R. Whiteley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental ConservationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.PantheraNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations