Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring urban habitat fragmentation: an example from the Black Country, UK

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The processes of urbanisation have left a fragmented mosaic of habitat patches of varying size, shape and character with the result that from location to location the number and quality of contacts between patches varies considerably. Traditional measurements of this habitat fragmentation, and its converse, connectivity, have rarely looked at the landscape as a whole but instead have simplified it to specific landscape subsets, or else have looked at area-to-area relationships through generalising the landscape into homogeneous pixels or grids. In this paper the character of the whole landscape is examined at scales appropriate to the spatial variability of the urban environment. Using a direct measurement of patch-to-patch contact all contacts between all patches are examined and the relationship between all contiguous and connecting habitats is quantified. This is further refined to look at connections between patches of different quality, a measure that highlights the adverse effects of urbanisation as a whole on landscape connections between quality habitats.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahern, J. 1995. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landsc. Urban Planning 33: 131–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, G.M.A. 1997. A framework for the future: green networks with multiple uses in and around towns and cities. English Nature Research Report No. 256, English Nature, Peterborough.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beier, P. and Noss, R.F. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Cons. Biol. 12: 1241–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinge, S.K. 1996. Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landsc. Urban Planning 36: 59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, D. 1994. Are habitat corridors conduits for animals and plants in a fragmented landscape? A review of the scientific evidence. English Nature Research Report No. 94, English Nature, Peterborough, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, K.J. 1995. A comprehensive conservation strategy for Georgia's greenways. Landsc. Urban Planning 33: 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doak, D.F., Marino, P.C. and Kareiva, P.M. 1992. Spatial scale mediates the influence of habitat fragmentation on dispersal success: implications for conservation. Theor. Popul. Biol. 41: 315–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, P. and Dennis, R. 1997. Butterfly range-extension into Greater Manchester: the role of climate change and habitat patches. Urban Nature Mag. 3: 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R.T.T. 1995a. Land Mosaics: the Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R.T.T. 1995b. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landsc. Ecol. 10: 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, O.L. 1989. The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode, D.A. 1989. Urban nature conservation in Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 26: 859–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, J.A.G. 2000. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landsc. Ecol. 15: 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssens, P. and Gulnick, H. 1988. Connectivity, proximity and contiguity in the landscape interpretation of remote sensing data. In Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar of the International Association for Landscape Ecology. pp. 43–48. Edited by K.F. Schreiber. Münstersche Geographische Arbeiten, Münster, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L.B. 1990. Analyzing spatial and temporal phenomena using GIS (a review of ecological applications). Landsc. Ecol. 4: 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C.W. 1995. Planning and designing for the multiple-use role of habitats in urban/suburban landscapes in the Great Basin. Landsc. Urban Planning 32: 219–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, T.W. and Morris, D.W. 1996. How many habitats do landscapes contain? Ecology 77: 1756–1764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovár, P. 1995. Is plant community organization level relevant to monitoring landscape heterogeneity? Two case studies of mosaic landscapes in the suburban zones of Prague, Czech republic. Landsc. Urban Planning 32: 137–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozová, M., Smitalova, K. and Vizyova, A. 1986. Use of measures of network connectivity in the evaluation of ecological landscape stability. Ekologia (Czechoslovakia) 5: 187–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linehan, J., Gross, M. and Finn, J. 1995. Greenway planning: developing a landscape ecological network approach. Landsc. Urban Planning 33: 179–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, M.J. and Pickett, S.T.A. 1988. Connectivity and the theory of landscape ecology. In Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar of the International Association for Landscape Ecology. pp. 17–22. Edited by K.F. Schreiber. Münstersche Geographische Arbeiten, Münster, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, J.-P. and Décamps, H. 1997. The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecologica 18: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen, A. and Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79: 2503–2515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nature Conservancy Council (1990) Handbook for Phase-1 Habitat Survey — a Technique for Environmental Audit. N.C.C., Peterborough, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pither, J. and Taylor, P.D. 1998. An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83: 166–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebele, F. 1994. Urban ecology and special features of urban ecosystems. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 4: 173–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riiters, K.H., O'Neill, R.V. and Jones, K.B. 1997. Assessing habitat suitability at multiple scales: a landscape-level approach. Biol. Cons. 81: 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, A. and Horn, S.P. 1997. Wildlife conservation in urban greenways of the mid-southeastern United States. Urban Ecosys. 1: 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schippers, P., Verboom, J., Knaapen, J.P. and van Apeldoorn, R.C. 1996. Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19: 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumaker, N.H. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77: 1210–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sisinni, S.M. and O'Hea-Anderson, M. 1993. Methods and results of natural resource assessments in New York City, New York. Landsc. Urban Planning 25: 95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sukopp, H., Kunick, W. and Schneider, C. 1980. Biotope mapping in the built-up areas of West Berlin II. Garten und Landschaft 7/80: 565–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szacki, J., Glowacka, I., Liro, A. and Matuszkiewicz, A. 1994. The role of connectivity in the urban landscape: some results of research. Memorabilia Zoologica 49: 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C.D. 1995. Ecology and conservation of butterfly metapopulations in the fragmented British landscape. In Ecology and Conservation of Butterflies. pp. 46–64. Edited by A.S. Pullin. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M.G. 1990. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landsc. Ecol. 4: 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veitch, N., Webb, N.R. and Wyatt, B.K. 1995. The application of Geographic Information Systems and remotely sensed data to the conservation of heathland fragments. Biol. Cons. 72: 91–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove, D.S., McLellan, C.H. and Dobson, A.P. 1986. Habitat Fragmentation in the temperate zone. In Conservation Biology. pp. 237–256. Edited by M.E. Soulé. Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • With, K.A., Gardner, R.H. and Turner, M.G. 1997. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78: 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittig, R. and Schreiber, K-F. 1983. A quick method for assessing the importance of open spaces in towns for urban nature conservation. Biol. Cons. 26: 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, C.H. and Jarvis, P.J. (in press) A simple method for predicting the consequences of land-management in urban habitats. Environ. Manag.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Applied Sciences, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, UK

    Christopher H. Young & Peter J. Jarvis

Authors
  1. Christopher H. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter J. Jarvis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher H. Young.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Young, C.H., Jarvis, P.J. Measuring urban habitat fragmentation: an example from the Black Country, UK. Landscape Ecology 16, 643–658 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013108005347

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013108005347

Search

Navigation