Advertisement

Spatial assessment of landscape ecological connectivity in different urban gradient

  • Sohyun Park
Article

Abstract

Urbanization has resulted in remnant natural patches within cities that often have no connectivity among themselves and to natural reserves outside the urban area. Protecting ecological connectivity in fragmented urban areas is becoming crucial in maintaining urban biodiversity and securing critical habitat levels and configurations under continual development pressures. Nevertheless, few studies have been undertaken for urban landscapes. This study aims to assess ecological connectivity for a group of species that represent the urban desert landscape in the Phoenix metropolitan area and to compare the connectivity values along the different urban gradient. A GIS-based landscape connectivity model which relies upon ecological connectivity index (ECI) was developed and applied to this region. A GIS-based concentric buffering technique was employed to delineate conceptual boundaries for urban, suburban, and rural zones. The research findings demonstrated that urban habitats and potential habitat patches would be significantly influenced by future urban development. Particularly, the largest loss of higher connectivity would likely to be anticipated in the “in-between areas” where urban, suburban, and rural zones overlap one another. The connectivity maps would be useful to provide spatial identification regarding connectivity patterns and vulnerability for urban and suburban activities in this area. This study provides planners and landscape architects with a spatial guidance to minimize ecological fragmentation, which ultimately leads to urban landscape sustainability. This study suggests that conventional planning practices which disregard the ecological processes in urban landscapes need to integrate landscape ecology into planning and design strategies.

Keywords

Landscape ecological connectivity Metropolitan landscape Urban gradient Phoenix 

References

  1. Adriaensen, F., Chardon, J. P., De Blust, G., Swinnen, E., Villalba, S., Gulinck, H., & Matthysen, E. (2003). The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, A. H., & Anderson, A. (1973). The cactus wren. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2009). Foxes. http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/game_foxes.shtml.
  4. Baguette, M., & van Dyck, H. (2007). Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecology, 22, 1117–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, L. A., Brazel, A. J., Selover, N., Martin, C., McIntyre, N., Steiner, F. R., Nelson, A., & Mussachio, L. (2002). Urbanization and warming of Phoenix (Arizona, USA): impacts, feedbacks and mitigation. Urban Ecosystems, 6, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bani, L., Baietto, M., Bottoni, L., & Massa, R. (2002). The use of focal species in designing a habitat network for a lowland area of Lombardy, Italy. Conservation Biology, 16, 826–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beier, P., Penrod, K. L., Kyjem, C., Soebcerm, W., & Cabaero, C. (2005). South coast missing linkages: Restoring connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the United States. In K. R. Crooks (Ed.), Connectivity and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Belisle, M. (2005). Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology, 86, 1988–1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berling-Wolff, S., & Wu, J. (2004). Modeling urban landscape dynamics: a case study in Phoenix, USA. Urban Ecosystems, 7, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bierwagen, B. G. (2005). Predicting ecological connectivity in urbanizing landscapes. Environmental and Planning B, 32, 763–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bierwagen, B. G. (2007). Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: the importance of habitat configuration, urban area size, and dispersal. Urban Ecosystem, 10, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bodin, Ö., & Norberg, J. (2007). A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecology, 22, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Broquet, T., Ray, N., Petit, E., Fryxell, H. M., & Burel, F. (2006). Genetic isolation by distance and landscape connectivity in the American marten (Martes americana). Landscape Ecology, 21, 877–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carignan, V., & Villard, M. (2002). Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 78, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlos, C., Noss, R. F., Paquet, P. C., & Schumaker, N. H. (2003). Use of population viability analysis and reserve selection algorithms in regional conservation plans. Ecological Applications, 13, 1773–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins, M. G. (2005). A passive adaptive management approach for grassland loss and fragmentation on the United States Army Garrison Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  17. Cook, E. A. (2000). Ecological Networks in Urban Landscapes, Doctoral Dissertation. The Netherlands, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  18. Cook, E. A. (2002). Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cook, E. A., & van Lier, H. N. (1994). Landscape planning and ecological networks. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Crooks, R., & Sanjayan, M. A. (Eds.). (2006). Connectivity conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Davies, Z., & Pullin, A. (2007). Are hedgerows effective corridors between fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach. Landscape Ecology, 22, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DeStefano, S., & Johnson, E. A. (2005). Species that benefit from sprawl. In E. A. Johnson & M. W. Klemens (Eds.), Nature in fragments: the legacy of sprawl (pp. 206–236). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dufrêne, M., & Legendre, P. (1997). Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs, 67, 345–366.Google Scholar
  24. Eigenbrod, F., Hecnar, S. J., & Fahrig, L. (2008). Accessible habitat: an improved measure of the effects of habitat loss and roads on wildlife populations. Landscape Ecology, 23, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Erickson, D. (2006). MetroGreen: Connecting open space in North American cities. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  26. Esbah, H. (2001). Using Landscape Structure Indices to Understand the Possible Impacts of Landscape Change: Case of the Mountain Preserves in the City of Phoenix. Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  27. Esbah, H., Cook, E. A., & Ewan, J. (2009). Effects of increasing urbanization on the ecological integrity of open space preserves. Journal of Environmental Management, 43, 846–862.Google Scholar
  28. Ewan, J., & Underhill, M. (2003). Exploration of the edge. Tempe: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  29. Farmer, M., Wallace, M., & Shiroya, M. (2013). Bird diversity indicates ecological value in urban home prices. Urban Ecosystems, 16(1), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Frost, N. (2005). San Joaquin Kit Fox Home Range, Habitat Use, and Movements in Urban Bakersfield. Master Thesis, Humboldt State University.Google Scholar
  32. Gammage, G., Jr. (1999). Phoenix in perspective: reflection on developing the desert. Tempe: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  33. Gober, P., & Burns, E. K. (2002). The size and shape of Phoenix’s urban fringe. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graves, T., Farley, S., Goldstein, M., & Serheen, C. (2007). Identification of functional corridors with movement characteristics of brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Landscape Ecology, 22, 765–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grimm, B. N., & Redman, C. L. (2004). Approaches to the study of urban ecosystems: the case of Central Arizona-Phoenix. Urban Ecosystems, 7, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hepcan, C. C., & Ozkan, M. B. (2010). Establishing ecological networks for habitat conservation in the case of Cesme-Urla Peninsula, Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 174, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hepcan, S., Hepcan, C. C., Bouwma, I. M., Jongman, R. H. G., & Ozkan, M. B. (2010). Ecological networks as a new approach for nature conservation in Turkey: a case study of Izmir Province. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoctor, T. S., Carr, M. H., & Zwick, P. D. (2000). Identifying a linked reserve system using a regional landscape approach: the Florida Ecological Network. Conservation Biology, 14, 984–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Joly, P., Morand, C., & Cohas, A. (2003). Habitat fragmentation and amphibian conservation: building a tool for assessing landscape matrix connectivity. Computes Rendus Biologies, 326, 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kati, V., Devillers, P., Dufrene, M., Legakis, A., Vokou, D., & Lebrun, P. (2004). Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? Designing optimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 120, 471–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keys, E., Wentz, E. A., & Redman, C. L. (2007). The spatial structure of land use from 1970–2000 in the Phoenix, Arizona, Metropolitan Area. The Professional Geographer, 59, 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knowles-Yanez, K., Moritz, C., Fry, J., Redman, C. L., Bucchin, M., & McCartney, P. H. (1999). Historic land use: phase 1 report on generalized land use. Tempe: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  43. Lambeck, R. J. (1997). Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology, 11, 849–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levin, N., Lahav, H., Ramon, U., Heller, A., Nizry, G., Tsoar, A., & Sagi, Y. (2007). Landscape continuity analysis: a new approach to conservation planning in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lindenmayer, D. B., & Fisher, J. (2006). Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  46. Litvaitis, J. A., & Shaw, J. H. (1980). Coyote movements, habitat use, and food habits in Southwestern Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management, 44, 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Luck, M., & Wu, J. (2002). A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology, 17, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marulli, J., & Mallarach, M. (2005). A GIS methodology for assessing ecological connectivity: application to the Barcelona Metropolitan Area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71, 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McHarg, I. L. (1992). Design with nature. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. Melnick, R. (2003). Expanding our view of region, farther than the eye can see. In Arizona State University, a regional atlas for greater phoenix: a preview of the region’s 50-year future.Google Scholar
  51. Moilanen, A., & Hanski, I. (2001). On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos, 95, 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Musacchio, L. R. (2008). Metropolitan landscape ecology: using translational research to increase sustainability, resilience, and regeneration. Landscape Journal, 27(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Musacchio, L. R., Crewe, K., Steiner, F., & Schmidt, J. (2003). The future of agriculture landscape preservation in the Phoenix Metropolitan Region. Landscape Journal, 22(2), 140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Noss, R. F. (2004). Can urban areas have ecological integrity? In W. W. Shaw, K. Harris, & L. VanDurff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international urban wildlife symposium on urban wildlife conservation. Tucson: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  55. Opdam, P., Steomgrpver, E., & Rooij, S. (2006). Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75, 322–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Park, S. (2010). Landscape Connectivity Assessment in the Phoenix Metropolitan Region: An integrative approach of landscape ecology and planning. Proceedings of Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA). Maastrich, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  57. Parker, K., Laurie, L. H., Chisholm, A., & Feneley, N. (2008). A conceptual model of ecological connectivity in the Shellharbour Local Government Area, New South Wales, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Patton, A., & Francl, K. (2008). Vulpes macrotis. Animal Diversity Web. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Vulpes_macrotis.html.
  59. Powers, D. R. (1987). Effects of variation in food quality on the breeding territoriality of the male Anna’s hummingbird. Condor, 89, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rosenberg, K. V., Ohmart, R. D., Hunter, W. C., & Anderson, B. W. (1991). Birds of the lower Colorado River valley. Tucson, AZ: University Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rothley, K. D., & Rae, C. (2005). Working backwards to move forwards: graph-based connectivity metrics for reserve network selection. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 10, 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Snellen, D., Borgers, A., & Timmermans, H. (2002). Urban form, road network type, and mode choice for frequently conducted activities: a multilevel analysis using quasi-experimental design data. Environment and Planning A, 34, 1207–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stevens, V. M., Polus, E., Wesselingh, R. A., Schtickzelle, N., & Baguette, M. (2004). Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Landscape Ecology, 19, 829–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., & Merriam, G. (1993). Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos, 68, 571–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tischendorf, L., & Fahring, L. (2000). On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos, 90, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Umetsu, F., & Pardini, R. (2007). Small mammals in a mosaic of forest remnants and anthropogenic habitats: evaluating matrix quality in an Atlantic forest landscape. Landscape Ecology, 22, 517–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. US Census Bureau. (2009). Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metrodef.html.
  68. van Langevelde, F. (2000). Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations. Ecography, 23, 614–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wimberly, M. (2006). Species dynamics in disturbed landscapes: when does a shifting habitat mosaic enhance connectivity? Landscape Ecology, 21, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Witzeman, J. L., Demaree, S. R., & Radke, F. L. (1997). Birds of Phoenix and Maricopa County. Phoenix: Maricopa Audubon Society.Google Scholar
  71. Zhang, S., York, A. M., & Boone, C. G. (2010). Methodological issues in land fragmentation gradient analysis. A poster presented at the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP-LTER) Twelfth Annual Poster symposium, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Landscape ArchitectureTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations