Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Spatial assessment of landscape ecological connectivity in different urban gradient

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. H., & Anderson, A. (1973). The cactus wren. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2009). Foxes. http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/game_foxes.shtml.

  • Baguette, M., & van Dyck, H. (2007). Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecology, 22, 1117–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Belisle, M. (2005). Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology, 86, 1988–1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berling-Wolff, S., & Wu, J. (2004). Modeling urban landscape dynamics: a case study in Phoenix, USA. Urban Ecosystems, 7, 215–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierwagen, B. G. (2005). Predicting ecological connectivity in urbanizing landscapes. Environmental and Planning B, 32, 763–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierwagen, B. G. (2007). Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: the importance of habitat configuration, urban area size, and dispersal. Urban Ecosystem, 10, 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, Ö., & Norberg, J. (2007). A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecology, 22, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carignan, V., & Villard, M. (2002). Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 78, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Cook, E. A. (2000). Ecological Networks in Urban Landscapes, Doctoral Dissertation. The Netherlands, Wageningen University.

  • Cook, E. A. (2002). Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 269–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, E. A., & van Lier, H. N. (1994). Landscape planning and ecological networks. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, R., & Sanjayan, M. A. (Eds.). (2006). Connectivity conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Z., & Pullin, A. (2007). Are hedgerows effective corridors between fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach. Landscape Ecology, 22, 333–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dufrêne, M., & Legendre, P. (1997). Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs, 67, 345–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, D. (2006). MetroGreen: Connecting open space in North American cities. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • ESRI. (2010). ArcGIS Desktop Help 9.3. http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgiSDEsktop/9.3/index.cfm?TopicName=cost_path.

  • Ewan, J., & Underhill, M. (2003). Exploration of the edge. Tempe: Arizona State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, M., Wallace, M., & Shiroya, M. (2013). Bird diversity indicates ecological value in urban home prices. Urban Ecosystems, 16(1), 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, N. (2005). San Joaquin Kit Fox Home Range, Habitat Use, and Movements in Urban Bakersfield. Master Thesis, Humboldt State University.

  • Gammage, G., Jr. (1999). Phoenix in perspective: reflection on developing the desert. Tempe: Arizona State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gober, P., & Burns, E. K. (2002). The size and shape of Phoenix’s urban fringe. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN. (2006). Cactus Wren. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/147753/0.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lambeck, R. J. (1997). Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology, 11, 849–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer, D. B., & Fisher, J. (2006). Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litvaitis, J. A., & Shaw, J. H. (1980). Coyote movements, habitat use, and food habits in Southwestern Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management, 44, 62–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHarg, I. L. (1992). Design with nature. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Moilanen, A., & Hanski, I. (2001). On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos, 95, 147–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musacchio, L. R. (2008). Metropolitan landscape ecology: using translational research to increase sustainability, resilience, and regeneration. Landscape Journal, 27(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, A., & Francl, K. (2008). Vulpes macrotis. Animal Diversity Web. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Vulpes_macrotis.html.

  • Powers, D. R. (1987). Effects of variation in food quality on the breeding territoriality of the male Anna’s hummingbird. Condor, 89, 103–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., & Merriam, G. (1993). Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos, 68, 571–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf, L., & Fahring, L. (2000). On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos, 90, 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau. (2009). Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metrodef.html.

  • van Langevelde, F. (2000). Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations. Ecography, 23, 614–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimberly, M. (2006). Species dynamics in disturbed landscapes: when does a shifting habitat mosaic enhance connectivity? Landscape Ecology, 21, 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witzeman, J. L., Demaree, S. R., & Radke, F. L. (1997). Birds of Phoenix and Maricopa County. Phoenix: Maricopa Audubon Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Landscape Architecture, Texas Tech University, PO Box 42121, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2121, USA

    Sohyun Park

Authors
  1. Sohyun Park
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sohyun Park.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, S. Spatial assessment of landscape ecological connectivity in different urban gradient. Environ Monit Assess 187, 425 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4645-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4645-9

Keywords