Meff

The application of effective mesh size requires specification of the landscape elements that cause fragmentation, and the definition of scales over which fragmentation is to be determined. The combination of these selections defines the fragmentation geometry (FG) (Jaeger et al., 2008). In an attempt to evaluate the suitability and reliability of meff as a landscape indicator, the following will address these questions:

• What are the advantages of using meff as an indicator of landscape fragmentation and what exactly does it measure?
• What is the extent of landscape fragmentation in the North Yukon Region today?
• what are the current values of meff in the North Yukon?
• How variable is meff among the different landscape management units (LMU) and sub-units?
• Which FG(s) is/are the most suitable one(s) to use?

The North Yukon Planning Commission has already conducted land use scenario modelling using the ALCES landscape computer simulation model to explore and better understand potential outcomes of plausible oil and gas, tourism and mining land use activities for the North Yukon Planning Region (NYLUSR, 2009). Two indicators of landscape fragmentation, linear density and surface disturbance were used in the scenario modelling (include definitions of both LD and SD). While current estimates of landscape disturbance levels are uncertain, this uncertainty does not significantly alter the land use modelling outcomes (NYLUSR, 2009).

An analysis of the effective mesh size as an indicator of landscape fragmentation will be conducted by looking at its advantages over the two previous indicators used in the model. This report will attempt to give proper reasoning as to why effective mesh size should be used as an indicator for measuring levels of landscape disturbance in subsequent land use scenario models.

Land use modelling was conducted for two study areas: 1) the entire planning region, and 2) the Eagle Plain oil and gas basin. The Eagle Plain oil and gas basin was considered to have the highest potential to incur significant levels of land use activity in the near future and was examined in greater detail (NYLUSR, 2009). Effective mesh size will be measured for all 24 sub-units, and comparison between each of them will therefore be available.

Find quote as to why it's relevant to have FGs and another that defines it. Look as Gunlinck and Wagendorp, 2002 paper (references for fragmentation analysis in the rural matrix in cultural landscapes. Landscape & Urban Planning 58).

Criteria selection for FGs

To analyse landscape fragmentation it is first necessary to specify which landscape elements are important (Jaeger et al., 2008). In this context, it is important to make the distinction between permanent and semi-permanent features. Permanent features refer to (look up permanent features definition that may be relevant for this), whereas semi-permanent features refer to features that have the ability to disappear through natural processes such as re-vegetation. As a result, the first FG will single out features whose life-span are 30 years or below (seismic liens and community use trails. Refer to table 5 on seismic lines and table 6 on estimated footprint lifespan, p. 21-22 of NYLUSR, 2009).