Landscape analysis reveals three distinct open space configurations across 54 conservation subdivisions, suggesting current design policies fail to guarantee uniform ecological benefits.
Conservation subdivisions cluster residences in smaller lots compared to conventional subdivisions in order to protect common open spaces (COS) with the assumption that clustering and open space preservation will provide increased ecosystem services. However, the guidelines and regulations for conservation subdivisions typically lack direction on how COS should be designed and maintained. The primary objective of our study was to examine the landscape structure of COS across 54 conservation subdivisions developed in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, USA, and our secondary objective was to evaluate whether COS landscape structure is associated with bird occurrence. We selected seven FRAGSTATS landscape metrics relevant for assessing biophysical processes in urbanized areas in the categories of area/size (PLAND, MPS, LPI), edge/shape (ED, PD), and fragmentation/isolation/aggregation (LSI, IJI). Our k-means clustering and non-metric multidimensional scaling analysis found that the landscape structure of COS varies across the conservation subdivisions and that there are three distinct categories of COS (i.e., intact large-patch COS, fragmented medium-patch COS, and small, dispersed COS) in these subdivisions. Analysis of bird occurrences using eBird data did not show conclusive results but suggested that future systematic wildlife observation in the three groups of conservation subdivisions may provide evidence of the importance of COS composition and configuration, as COS landscape structure may influence ecosystem services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Göçmen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: