Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 1223–1229 | Cite as

Least-cost path length versus accumulated-cost as connectivity measures



Least-cost modelling has become a popular method for measuring connectivity. By representing the landscape as a cost-surface, least-cost paths can be calculated that represent the route of maximum efficiency between two locations as a function of the distance travelled and the costs traversed. Both the length and the accumulated-cost of a least-cost path have been used as measures of connectivity between pairs of locations. However, we are concerned that in some situations the length of a least-cost path may provide a misleading measure of connectivity as it only accounts for the distance travelled while ignoring the costs traversed, and results in a measure that may be little better than Euclidean distance. Through simulations using fractal landscapes we demonstrate that least-cost path length is often highly correlated with Euclidean distance. This indicates that least-cost path length provides a poor measure of connectivity in many situations, as it does not capture sufficient information about the ecological costs to movement represented by the cost-surface. We recommend that in most situations the accumulated-cost of a least-cost path provides a more appropriate measure of connectivity between locations as it accounts for both the distance travelled and costs traversed, and that the generation of vector least-cost paths should be reserved for visualisation purposes.


Accumulated-cost Cost-distance Effective geographic distance Friction Functional distance Irregular landscape graph Least-cost modelling Regular landscape graph Resistance 


  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape Urban Plan 64:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broquet T, Ray N, Petit E, Fryxell JM, Burel F (2006) Genetic isolation by distance and landscape connectivity in the American marten (Martes americana). Landscape Ecol 21:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Desrochers A, Bélisle M, Morand-Ferron J, Bourque J (2011) Integrating GIS and homing experiments to study avian movement costs. Landscape Ecol 26:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Douglas DH (1994) Least-cost path in GIS using an accumulated cost surface and slopelines. Cartographica 31:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Etherington TR (2011) Python based GIS tools for landscape genetics: visualising genetic relatedness and measuring landscape connectivity. Methods Ecol Evol 2:52–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Etherington TR (2012) Least-cost modelling on irregular landscape graphs. Landscape Ecol 27:957–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos 112:473–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forman RTT, Godron M (1981) Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. Bioscience 31:733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fournier A, Fussell D, Carpenter L (1982) Computer rendering of stochastic models. Commun ACM 25:371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gonzales EK, Gergel SE (2007) Testing assumptions of cost surface analysis - a tool for invasive species management. Landscape Ecol 22:1155–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koen EL, Bowman J, Walpole AA (2012) The effect of cost surface parameterization on landscape resistance estimates. Mol Ecol Resour 12:686–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koscinski 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
  13. Lada H, Thomson JR, Mac Nally R, Taylor AC (2008) Impacts of massive landscape change on a carnivorous marsupial in south-eastern Australia: inferences from landscape genetics analysis. J Appl Ecol 45:1732–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pinto N, Keitt TH (2009) Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecol 24:253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ray N (2005) PATHMATRIX: a geographical information system tool to compute effective distances among samples. Mol Ecol Notes 5:177–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2010) The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landscape Ecol 25:519–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27:777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Biodiversity and Biosecurity, School of EnvironmentThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Landcare ResearchLincolnNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations