Working with meff tool in ArcGIS

After researching the effective mesh size tool in further detail I have discovered how exactly the original layers needed to be manipulated in order to get the desired results. I ran into some problems running the tool with buffers around features, so I decided to run it using shapefiles without buffers. To my understanding, the union tool was needed to create a new layer combining features from two different shapefiles. In this case, the "footprint without buffers" and nypr_lmu_mar08" layers were used as input features and the result was a new layer called "Union_Without_Buffers". This new layer has a column in the attributes table called patch, which codes features as 1s or 0s. Notes on the effective mesh size tool state that areas that are not covered by fragmenting elements (the suitable patches) should be coded as 1 in some field (barrier layer field). The areas covered by fragmenting elements (and their buffers) can be removed to make the shapefile smaller, however, if the fragmenting elements are left, then they should be given a value of 0 in the barrier layer field. Values in the patch column were opposite of this such that fragmenting elements were given a value of 1, whereas areas not covered by fragmenting elements were coded as 0. As a result, I simply edited the table and removed all fragmenting elements and replaced the 0 values in the 24 remaining rows (for each SU) with the value 1.

The tool ran successfully and the output file "mapunits" was created. The field "effmeshCBC" is the effective mesh size calculated using the cross-boundary connections method, while the "EffMesh" field is the effective mesh size calculated using the CUT method (as presented by Moser et al., 2007). Range of values according to each SU were mapped (see image below).



However, there seem to be inconsistencies with the results and the actual footprint data. On the one hand, the Eagle Plains Region has a high concentration of disturbances and is shown by the proper gradient, in this case blue. On the other hand, the Vuntut National Park Sub-Unit (the Northernmost SU in the North Yukon) is also represented by the same gradient, despite having very few disturbances present. Also, I am unsure as to what these values mean. This issue will need to be raised during the meeting on Monday, April 26th.