Skip to main content
  • Methodological Developments in Landscape Ecology and Related Fields (Y WIERSMA AND J HOLLISTER, SECTION EDITORS)
  • Published:

Connectivity in the Urban Landscape (2015–2020): Who? Where? What? When? Why? and How?

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review uses a combination of narrative and systematic review techniques, including automated content analysis (ACA), to summarize the last 5 years of research on urban connectivity. It addresses the evolution of the field relative to prior reviews, identifies common themes and research gaps in the studies, and assesses the use of novel methods and data.

Recent Findings

We found a broadening of geographic and taxonomic scope in recent studies, including more research from Chinese cities and on multiple species. We also found more studies that covered multiple time periods than have been documented in prior reviews. However, we observed a continuing reliance on best professional judgment rather than empirical field data to parameterize models and on analytic methods that are 10–20 years old. Our review framework identified several distinct conceptual themes in the literature including foci on land cover, including roads, water, and vegetation; green spaces and infrastructure; ecological conservation, planning, and management; habitat structure and function; and species movement.

Summary

Urban areas offer the opportunity to leverage unique data sets and novel analytical methods that incorporate both human and other biological needs for connectivity, acknowledging that these two needs may not always align. In terms of data, few of the connectivity results were supported by or tested with empirical data. While nearly two-thirds of the papers reviewed included some measure of functional connectivity, which is an increase from previous reviews, future research would benefit from new modeling approaches that explicitly incorporate the challenges of measuring landscape connectivity within the urban context and from a clear set of shared objectives and goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos. 2000;90(1):7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Urban D, Keitt T. Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology. 2001;82(5):1205–18.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rudnick D, Ryan S, Beier S, Cushman S,Dieffenbach F, Epps C, Gerber L, Harrter J, Jenness J, Kintsch J, Merenlender A, Perkl R, Preziosi D, Trombulak S. The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues in Ecology. 2012 Fall;16:1–20.

  4. Kindlmann P, Burel F. Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol. 2008;31(23):879–90.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Costanza JK, Terando AJ. Landscape connectivity planning for adaptation to future climate and land-use change. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep. 2019;4(1):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Spotswood EN, Beller EE, Grossinger R, Grenier JL, Heller NE, Aronson MFJ. The biological deserts fallacy: cities in their landscapes contribute more than we think to regional biodiversity. BioScience. 2021;71(2):148–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Fusco NA, Carlen EJ, Munshi-South J. Urban landscape genetics: are biologists keeping up with the pace of urbanization?. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep. 2021;6(2):35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Alberti M, Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C. Integrating Humans into Ecology: Opportunities and Challenges for Studying Urban Ecosystems. BioScience. 2003;53(12):1169.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Alberti M, Palkovac EP, Des Roches S, De Meester L, Brans KI, Govaert L, Grimm NB, Harris NC, Hendry AP, Schell CJ, Szulkin M, Munshi-South J, Urban MC, Verrelli BC. The complexity of urban eco-evolutionary dynamics. BioScience. 2020;70(9):772–93.

  10. Ersoy E. Landscape ecology practices in planning: landscape connectivity and urban networks. In: Ergen M, editor. Sustainable Urbanization [Internet]. InTech; 2016 [cited 2021 Aug 4]. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/sustainable-urbanization/landscape-ecology-practices-in-planning-landscape-connectivity-and-urban-networks.

  11. Zurlini G, Jones KB, Riitters KH, Li B-L, Petrosillo I. Early warning signals of regime shifts from cross-scale connectivity of land-cover patterns. Ecol Indic. 2014;45:549–60.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pelorosso R, Gobattoni F, Geri F, Monaco R, Leone A. Evaluation of ecosystem services related to bio-energy landscape connectivity (BELC) for land use decision making across different planning scales. Ecol Indic. 2016;61:114–29.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hillman JR, Lundquist CJ, Thrush SF. The challenges associated with connectivity in ecosystem processes. Front Mar Sci. 2018;12(5):364.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fletcher RJ, Burrell NS, Reichert BE, Vasudev D, Austin JD. Divergent perspectives on landscape connectivity reveal consistent effects from genes to communities. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep. 2016;1(2):67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  15. •• LaPoint S, Balkenhol N, Hale J, Sadler J, Ree R. Ecological connectivity research in urban areas. Evans K, editor. Funct Ecol. 2015;29(7):868–78. This article provides an insightful review of the urban connectivity literature from 1977-2013.

  16. Smith AE, Humphreys MS. Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behav Res Methods. 2006;38(2):262–79.

  17. Nunez-Mir GC, Iannone BV, Pijanowski BC, Kong N, Fei S. Automated content analysis: addressing the big literature challenge in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7(11):1262–72.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Roberts CW. A conceptual framework for quantitative text analysis. Quality and quantity. 2000;34:259–74.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Correa Ayram CA, Mendoza ME, Etter A, Salicrup DRP. Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation: a review of recent studies and applications. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment. 2016;40(1):7–37.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Borrett SR, Moody J, Edelmann A. The rise of network ecology: maps of the topic diversity and scientific collaboration. Ecol Model. 2014;293:111–27.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McDonald RI, Mansur AV, Ascensão F, Colbert M, Crossman K, Elmqvist T, et al. Research gaps in knowledge of the impact of urban growth on biodiversity. Nat Sustain. 2020;3(1):16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Knapp S, Aronson MFJ, Carpenter E, Herrera-Montes A, Jung K, Kotze DJ, et al. A Research Agenda for Urban Biodiversity in the Global Extinction Crisis. BioScience. 2021;71(3):268–79.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Diniz MF, Cushman SA, Machado RB, De Marco Júnior P. Landscape connectivity modeling from the perspective of animal dispersal. Landscape Ecol. 2020;35(1):41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Huang J, He J, Liu D, Li C, Qian J. An ex-post evaluation approach to assess the impacts of accomplished urban structure shift on landscape connectivity. Sci Total Environ. 2018;622–623:1143–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schneiberg I, Boscolo D, Devoto M, Marcilio-Silva V, Dalmaso CA, Ribeiro JW, et al. Urbanization homogenizes the interactions of plant-frugivore bird networks. Urban Ecosyst. 2020;23(3):457–70.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tarabon S, Calvet C, Delbar V, Dutoit T, Isselin-Nondedeu F. Integrating a landscape connectivity approach into mitigation hierarchy planning by anticipating urban dynamics. Lands. Urban Plan. 2020;202:103871.

  27. De Montis A, Ganciu A, Cabras M, Bardi A, Mulas M. Comparative ecological network analysis: an application to Italy. Land Use Policy. 2019;81:714–24.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Albert CH, Rayfield B, Dumitru M, Gonzalez A. Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land-use change: prioritizing a network for biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 2017;31(6):1383–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Xiu N, Ignatieva M, van den Bosch CK, Chai Y, Wang F, Cui T, et al. A socio-ecological perspective of urban green networks: the Stockholm case. Urban Ecosyst. 2017;20(4):729–42.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tian Y, Liu Y, Jim C, Song H. Assessing structural connectivity of urban green spaces in metropolitan Hong Kong. Sustainability. 2017;9(9):1653.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zeller K, Lewison R, Fletcher R, Tulbure M, Jennings M. Understanding the Importance of Dynamic Landscape Connectivity. Land. 2020;9(9):303.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Thornhill I, Batty L, Hewitt M, Friberg NR, Ledger ME. The application of graph theory and percolation analysis for assessing change in the spatial configuration of pond networks. Urban Ecosyst [Internet]. 2017 Dec 18 [cited 2021 Jun 21]; Available from: http://link.springer.com/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-017-0724-8.

  33. Laforge A, Pauwels J, Faure B, Bas Y, Kerbiriou C, Fonderflick J, et al. Reducing light pollution improves connectivity for bats in urban landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 2019;34(4):793–809.

    Google Scholar 

  34. • Zhang Z, Meerow S, Newell JP, Lindquist M. Enhancing landscape connectivity through multifunctional green infrastructure corridor modeling and design. Urban For Urban Green. 2019;38:305–17. This paper uses a variety of approaches to assess connectivity and proposes design typologies for using vacant lots in the design of green infrastructure corridors.

  35. Li H, Zhou D, Hu S, Zhang J, Jiang Y, Zhang Y. Barrier-based longitudinal connectivity index for managing urban rivers. Water. 2018;10(11):1701.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Cui N, Feng C-C, Wang D, Li J, Guo L. The effects of rapid urbanization on forest landscape connectivity in Zhuhai City, China. Sustainability. 2018;10(10):3381.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wei J, Qian J, Tao Y, Hu F, Ou W. Evaluating spatial priority of urban green infrastructure for urban sustainability in areas of rapid urbanization: a case study of Pukou in China. Sustainability. 2018;10(2):327.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mimet A, Kerbiriou C, Simon L, Julien J-F, Raymond R. Contribution of private gardens to habitat availability, connectivity and conservation of the common pipistrelle in Paris. Lands. Urban Plan. 2020;193:103671.

  39. Shackelford N, Murray SM, Bennett JR, Lilley PL, Starzomski BM, Standish RJ. Ten years of pulling: ecosystem recovery after long‐term weed management in Garry oak savanna. Conservat Sci and Prac. 2019 Oct;1(10). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.92.

  40. Bounas A, Keroglidou M, Toli E, Chousidis I, Tsaparis D, Leonardos I, Sotiropoulos K. Constrained by aliens, shifting landscape, or poor water quality? Factors affecting the persistence of amphibians in an urban pond network. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2020;30(5):1037–49.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Grafius DR, Corstanje R, Siriwardena GM, Plummer KE, Harris JA. A bird’s eye view: using circuit theory to study urban landscape connectivity for birds. Landscape Ecol. 2017;32(9):1771–87.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Xiu N, Ignatieva M, van den Bosch CK, Zhang S. Applying a socio-ecological green network framework to Xi’an City. China Landscape Ecol Eng. 2020;16(2):135–50.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wanghe K, Guo X, Wang M, Zhuang H, Ahmad S, Khan TU, et al. Gravity model toolbox: an automated and open-source ArcGIS tool to build and prioritize ecological corridors in urban landscapes. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2020;22:e01012.

  44. Shimazaki A, Yamaura Y, Senzaki M, Yabuhara Y, Akasaka T, Nakamura F. Urban permeability for birds: an approach combining mobbing-call experiments and circuit theory. Urban For Urban Green. 2016;19:167–75.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ritchie AL, Dyer RJ, Nevill PG, Sinclair EA, Krauss SL. Wide outcrossing provides functional connectivity for new and old Banksia populations within a fragmented landscape. Oecologia. 2019;190(1):255–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zungu MM, Maseko MST, Kalle R, Ramesh T, Downs CT. Effects of landscape context on mammal richness in the urban forest mosaic of EThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2020;21:e00878.

  47. •• Balbi M, Petit EJ, Croci S, Nabucet J, Georges R, Madec L, et al. Ecological relevance of least-cost path analysis: an easy implementation method for landscape urban planning. J Environ Manage. 2019;244:61–8. This article provides an excellent example of using radio-tracking data in a controlled experimental context to compare movement in highly connected and unconnected landscapes.

  48. Choquette JD, Macpherson MR, Corry RC. Identifying potential connectivity for an urban population of rattlesnakes (Sistrurus catenatus) in a Canadian park system. Land. 2020;9(9):313.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Balbi M, Croci S, Petit EJ, Butet A, Georges R, Madec L, Caudal J-P, Ernoult A. least-cost path analysis for urban greenways planning: a test with moths and birds across two habitats and two cities. J Appl Ecol. 2020;58(3):632–43.

  50. • Wilk AJ, Donlon KC, Peterman WE. Effects of habitat fragment size and isolation on the density and genetics of urban red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus). Urban Ecosyst. 2020;23(4):761–73. This paper provides an example of how genetic analysis could be used to validate the implications of connectivity.

  51. Pelorosso R, Gobattoni F, Geri F, Leone A. PANDORA 3.0 plugin: a new biodiversity ecosystem service assessment tool for urban green infrastructure connectivity planning. Ecosyst Serv. 2017;26:476–82.

  52. Miles LS, Carlen EJ, Winchell KM, Johnson MTJ. Urban evolution comes into its own: Emerging themes and future directions of a burgeoning field. Evol Appl. 2021;14:3–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Rivkin LR, Santangelo JS, Alberti M, et al. A roadmap for urban evolutionary ecology. Evol Appl. 2019;12:384–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Miles LS, Rivkin LR, Johnson MTJ, Munshi-South J, Verrelli BC. Gene flow and genetic drift in urban environments. Mol Ecol. 2019;28:4138–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Jha S, Kremen C. Urban land use limits regional bumble bee gene flow. Mol Ecol. 2013;22(9):2483–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Trumbo DR, Salerno PE, Logan KA, et al. Urbanization impacts apex predator gene flow but not genetic diversity across an urban-rural divide. Mol Ecol. 2019;28:4926–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Carlen E, Munshi-South J. Widespread genetic connectivity of feral pigeons across the Northeastern megacity. Evol Appl. 2021;14:150–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Shackleton CM, Cilliers SS, du Toit MJ, Davoren E. The need for an urban ecology of the Global South. In: Shackleton CM, Cilliers SS, Davoren E, du Toit MJ (eds) Urban Ecology in the Global South. 2021. Cities and Nature. Springer, Cham.

  59. Cheng F, Liu S, Hou X, Wu X, Dong S, Coxixo A. The effects of urbanization on ecosystem services for biodiversity conservation in southernmost Yunnan Province. Southwest China J Geogr Sci. 2019;29(7):1159–78.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Peng J, Zhao S, Dong J, Liu Y, Meersmans J, Li H, et al. Applying ant colony algorithm to identify ecological security patterns in megacities. Environ Model Software. 2019;117:214–22.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Peng J, Pan Y, Liu Y, Zhao H, Wang Y. Linking ecological degradation risk to identify ecological security patterns in a rapidly urbanizing landscape. Habitat Int. 2018;71:110–24.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Su Y, Chen X, Liao J, Zhang H, Wang C, Ye Y, et al. Modeling the optimal ecological security pattern for guiding the urban constructed land expansions. Urban For Urban Green. 2016;19:35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Zhang D, Wang X, Qu L, Li S, Lin Y, Yao R, et al. Land use/cover predictions incorporating ecological security for the Yangtze River Delta region, China. Ecol Indic. 2020;119:106841.

  64. Furberg D, Ban Y, Mörtberg U. Monitoring urban green infrastructure changes and impact on habitat connectivity using high-resolution satellite data. Remote Sens. 2020;12(18):3072.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Tang Y, Gao C, Wu X. Urban ecological corridor network construction: an integration of the least cost path model and the InVEST model. IJGI. 2020;9(1):33.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Trimble MJ, van Aarde RJ. Geographical and taxonomic biases in research on biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Ecosphere. 2012;3(12):1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Holyoak M, Casagrandi R, Nathan R, Revilla E, Spiegel O. Trends and missing parts in the study of movement ecology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105(49):19060–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Sun R, Xie W, Chen L. A landscape connectivity model to quantify contributions of heat sources and sinks in urban regions. Lands Urban Plan. 2018;178:43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wu J, Li S, Shen N, Zhao Y, Cui H. Construction of cooling corridors with multiscenarios on urban scale: a case study of Shenzhen. Sustainability. 2020;12(15):5903.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Pan J. Area delineation and spatial-temporal dynamics of urban heat island in Lanzhou City, China using remote sensing imagery. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 2016;44(1):111–27.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Meerow S. A green infrastructure spatial planning model for evaluating ecosystem service tradeoffs and synergies across three coastal megacities. Environ Res Lett. 2019 Dec 17;14(12):125011.

  72. Meerow S, Newell JP. Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017;159:62–75.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Mu B, Liu C, Tian G, Xu Y, Zhang Y, Mayer AL, et al. Conceptual planning of urban–rural green space from a multidimensional perspective: a case study of Zhengzhou, China. Sustainability. 2020;12(7):2863.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Baruch EM, Voss KA, Blaszczak JR, Delesantro J, Urban DL, Bernhardt ES. Not all pavements lead to streams: variation in impervious surface connectivity affects urban stream ecosystems. Freshw Sci. 2018;37(3):673–84.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Su W, Wu J, Zhu B, Chen K, Peng W, Hu B. Health evaluation and risk factor identification of urban lakes—a case study of Lianshi Lake. Water. 2020;12(5):1428.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Su M, Zheng Y, Hao Y, Chen Q, Chen S, Chen Z, et al. The influence of landscape pattern on the risk of urban water-logging and flood disaster. Ecol Indic. 2018;92:133–40.

    Google Scholar 

  77. • Xue X, Lin Y, Zheng Q, Wang K, Zhang J, Deng J, et al. Mapping the fine-scale spatial pattern of artificial light pollution at night in urban environments from the perspective of bird habitats. Sci Total Environ. 2020;702:134725. This paper provides an example of using abundance data and novel urban data on artificial light in a connectivity analysis.

  78. Gecchele LV, Pedersen AB, Bell M. Fine-scale variation within urban landscapes affects marking patterns and gastrointestinal parasite diversity in red foxes. Ecol Evol. 2020;10(24):13796–809.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Ossola A, Locke D, Lin B, Minor E. Yards increase forest connectivity in urban landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 2019;34(12):2935–48.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Uroy L, Ernoult A, Mony C. Effect of landscape connectivity on plant communities: a review of response patterns. Landscape Ecol. 2019;34(2):203–25.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ramalho CE, Hobbs RJ. Time for a change: dynamic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012;27(3):179–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Foltête J-C, Savary P, Clauzel C, Bourgeois M, Girardet X, Sahraoui Y, Vuidel G, Garnier S. Coupling landscape graph modeling and biological data: a review. Landscape Ecol. 2020;35(5):1035–52.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Aronson MFJ, Patel MV, O’Neill KM, Ehrenfeld JG. Urban riparian systems function as corridors for both native and invasive plant species. Biol Invasions. 2017;19(12):3645–57.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Cowley DJ, Johnson O, Pocock MJO. Using electric network theory to model the spread of oak processionary moth, Thaumetopoea processionea, in urban woodland patches. Landscape Ecol. 2015;30(5):905–18.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Zeller KA, Jennings MK, Vickers TW, Ernest HB, Cushman SA, Boyce WM. Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data. Divers Distrib. 2018;24(7):868–79.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Kelso N, Patterson T. World Urban Areas, LandScan, 1:10 million. Made with natural earth. [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://earthworks.stanford.edu/catalog/stanford-yk247bg4748

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the reviewers and editors for their critical comments that have helped us improve the manuscript.

Funding

CM received funding from the University of Richmond Arts and Sciences Summer Research Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

TL and EM determined the scope, conducted the literature review, and wrote the initial draft and revisions. CM assisted with the systematic literature review, data summarization, and figure construction. GNM conducted the automated content analysis. PJ assisted with figure construction and appendices. All authors reviewed the final draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd R. Lookingbill.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Methodological Developments in Landscape Ecology and Related Fields

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 47 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 18 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lookingbill, T.R., Minor, E.S., Mullis, C.S. et al. Connectivity in the Urban Landscape (2015–2020): Who? Where? What? When? Why? and How?. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 7, 1–14 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-021-00068-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-021-00068-x

Keywords

  • City
  • Conservation
  • Corridors
  • Green space
  • Network