Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 29–42

Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: The importance of habitat configuration, urban area size, and dispersal



Human activities affect both the amount and configuration of habitat. These changes have important ecological implications that can be measured as changes in landscape connectivity. I investigated how urbanization interacts with the initial amount and aggregation of habitat to change dispersal potential, restoration potential, and the risk of spatially extensive disturbances. I used a factorial set of simulated landscapes and subjected each landscape to habitat loss by overlaying 66 different US urban areas. I used a common connectivity metric, CONNECT, to assess the magnitude and direction of changes for a range of dispersal distances. My results show that the relationship between habitat loss and connectivity loss is non-linear and subject to interactions between the spatial patterns of habitat distribution, urban morphology, and dispersal capabilities. The implications of a given urban form vary widely as a function of habitat distribution and dispersal capabilities. This implies that impact assessments, restoration activities, and conservation planning should consider historical habitat distribution when evaluating observed changes in connectivity. While my results clearly show that more aggregated or continuous habitats are more vulnerable to connectivity loss, this approach can also be used to identify landscapes where restoring connectivity will be particularly effective, for example through placement of stepping stone habitats.


Connectivity Dispersal distance Habitat amount Habitat configuration Urbanization 


  1. Alberti M, Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C (2003) Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. Bioscience 53:1169–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrzejewski R, Babinska-Werka J, Gliwicz J, Goszczynski J (1978) Synurbization processes in population of Apodemus agrarius. I. Characteristics of populations in an urbanization gradient. Acta Theriol 23:341–358Google Scholar
  3. Aurambout JP, Endress AG, Deal BM (2005) A spatial model to estimate habitat fragmentation and its consequences on long-term persistence of animal populations. Environ Monit Assess 109:199–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landsc Ecol 18:17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bierwagen BG (2003) Ecological and microevolutionary effects of urban land-use change on butterflies. University of California, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierwagen BG (2005) Predicting ecological connectivity in urbanizing landscapes. Environ Plann, B Plann Des 32:763–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crooks KR, Soulé ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cumming S, Vernier P (2002) Statistical models of landscape pattern metrics, with application to regional scale dynamic forest simulations. Landsc Ecol 17:433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Antonio C, Meyerson LA (2002) Exotic plant species as problems and solutions in ecological restoration: a synthesis. Restor Ecol 10:708–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ecke F, Christensen P, Sandstrom P, Hornfeldt B (2006) Identification of landscape elements related to local declines of a boreal grey-sided vole population. Landsc Ecol 21:485–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis EC, Wang HQ, Xiao HS, Peng K, Liu XP, Li SC, Ouyang H, Cheng X, Yang LZ (2006) Measuring long-term ecological changes in densely populated landscapes using current and historical high resolution imagery. Remote Sens Environ 100:457–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ESRI (1999) ArcView GIS 3.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  13. ESRI (2002) ArcGIS. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1985) Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66:1762–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fahrig L, Paloheimo J (1988) Effect of spatial arrangement of habitat patches on local population size. Ecology 69:468–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferraz SFD, Vettorazzi CA, Theobald DM, Ballester MVR (2005) Landscape dynamics of amazonian deforestation between 1984 and 2002 in central Rondonia, Brazil: assessment and future scenarios. For Ecol Manag 204:67–83Google Scholar
  17. Fromont E, Pontier D, Langlais M (2003) Disease propagation in connected host populations with density-dependent dynamics: the case of the feline leukemia virus. J Theor Biol 223:465–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gandon S, Rousset F (1999) Evolution of stepping-stone dispersal rates. Proc R Soc Lond, B 266:2507–2513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 Heidelberg New York, pp 280–303Google Scholar
  20. Gardner RH, O’Neill RV, Turner MG, Dale VH (1989) Quantifying scale-dependent effects of animal movement with simple percolation models. Landsc Ecol 3:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hargrove WW, Gardner RH, Turner MG, Romme WH, Despain DG (2000) Simulating fire patterns in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Model 135:243–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2006) Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hess GR (1994) Conservation corridors and contagious disease: a cautionary note. Conserv Biol 8:256–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacquemyn H, Honnay O, Galbusera P, Roldan-Ruiz I (2004) Genetic structure of the forest herb Primula elatior in a changing landscape. Mol Ecol 13:211–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jules ES, Shahani P (2003) A broader ecological context to habitat fragmentation: why matrix habitat is more important than we thought. J Veg Sci 14:459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keitt TH, Urban DL, Milne BT (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Ecol (online) 1, 4Google Scholar
  27. King AW, With KA (2002) Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter? Ecol Model 147:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li X, He HS, Wang X, Bu R, Hu Y, Chang Y (2004) Evaluating the effectiveness of neutral landscape models to represent a real landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 69:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  30. McCallum H, Dobson A (2002) Disease, habitat fragmentation and conservation. Proc R Soc Lond, B 269:2041–2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) Fragstats: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  32. McIntyre NE, Wiens JA (1999) Interactions between landscape structure and animal behavior: the roles of heterogeneously distributed resources and food deprivation on movement patterns. Landsc Ecol 14:437–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McKinney ML (2006) Correlated non-native species richness of birds, mammals, herptiles and plants: scale effects of area, human population and native plants. Biological Invasions 8:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merriam G (1984) Connectivity: a fundamental characteristic of landscape pattern, vol. 1. In: Brandt J, Agger P (eds) Roskilde Universitetsforlag GeoRuc, Roskilde, Denmark, pp 5–15Google Scholar
  35. Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145Google Scholar
  37. O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Turner MG, Romme WH (1992) Epidemiology theory and disturbance spread on landscapes. Landsc Ecol 7:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parendes LA, Jones JA (2000) Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the h. J. Andrews experimental forest, Oregon. Conserv Biol 14:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pauchard A, Aguayo M, Pena E, Urrutia R (2006) Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: the case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepcion, Chile). Biol Conserv 127:272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pfister JL (2004) Using landscape metrics to create an index of forest fragmentation for the state of Maryland. Towson University, pp 37Google Scholar
  41. Pither J, Taylor PD (1998) An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richards WH, Wallin DO, Schumaker NH (2002) An analysis of late-seral forest connectivity in western Oregon, U.S.A. Conserv Biol 16:1409–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Schultz CB (1998) Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design in a rare oregon butterfly. Conserv Biol 12:284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simberloff D, Cox J (1987) Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conserv Biol 1:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Söndgerath D, Schröder B (2002) Population dynamics and habitat connectivity affecting the spatial spread of populations—a simulation study. Landsc Ecol 1–14Google Scholar
  47. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taylor J, Paine C, Fitzgibbon J (1995) From greenbelt to greenways—4 Canadian case-studies. Landsc Urban Plan 33:47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Templeton AR, Robertson RJ, Brisson J, Strasburg J (2001) Disrupting evolutionary processes: the effect of habitat fragmentation on collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:5426–5432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tischendorf L (2001) Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landsc Ecol 16:235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trenham PC, Koenig WD, Shaffer HB (2001) Spatially autocorrelated demography and interpond dispersal in the salamander Ambystoma californiense. Ecology 82:3519–3530Google Scholar
  52. United Nations (2002) World urbanization prospects: the 2001 revision, data tables and highlights. Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel JN (2001) Completion of the 1990’s national land cover data set for the conterminous united states. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 67:650–662Google Scholar
  54. Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, Braak CJFT (2001) Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am Nat 183:24–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weber TP, Houston AI, Ens BJ (1999) Consequences of habitat loss at migratory stopover sites: a theoretical investigation. J Avian Biol 30:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiens JA, Schooley RL, Weeks RD (1997) Patchy landscapes and animal movements: do beetles percolate? Oikos 78:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78:151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. With KA, Cadaret SJ, Davis C (1999) Movement responses to patch structure in experimental fractal landscapes. Ecology 80:1340–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wyser N (2003) A qualitative and quantitative structural landscape analysis: case study in Monteverde, Costa Rica. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, pp 60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Global Change Research Program—US EPAWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations