Assessing the connectivity of natural systems in the Golden Horseshoe: an application of the effective mesh size by Amal Siddiqui A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Forest Conservation John H. Daniels' Faculty of Landscape, Architecture, and Design University of Toronto © Copyright Amal Siddiqui 2021 A. Siddiqui 2 Assessing the connectivity of natural systems in the Golden Horseshoe: an application of the effective mesh size Amal Siddiqui Master of Forest Conservation John H. Daniels' Faculty of Landscape, Architecture, and Design University of Toronto 2021 Abstract The Golden Horseshoe (GH) is a densely populated and rapidly developing region located in southern Ontario. It houses valuable agricultural lands and sensitive ecological features, including the Niagara Escarpment, Oak Ridges Moraine, and Ontario's Greenbelt, a permanently protected band of nearly 2 million acres. Urban development in the GH has accelerated fragmentation of natural cover and degraded its connectivity and quality. As urbanisation continues to pressure natural systems, it is critical to understand impacts on natural cover by monitoring and detecting changes over time. To assess changes in natural cover fragmentation and connectivity, the effective mesh size (meff) methodology was applied to the standard land cover data (SOLRIS) for the GH. We analysed meff across political and ecological boundaries and tested the metric at various spatial scales. The effective mesh size declined across the study area, indicating a general loss of connectivity throughout the GH despite protective policies, notably 2 in the Oak Ridges Moraine, which declined from 3.15 to 1.68 km . Our findings suggest that meff has the potential to be used as an indicator, as it provides a quantitative measure of a baseline condition upon which it is possible to monitor changes and establish management and policy targets. However, to implement the effective mesh size as an environmental indicator, we recommend finer resolution and more inclusive natural cover mapping. In addition, we recommend monitoring to be complemented with field-based data to improve interpretability of the effective mesh size values and better understand the impact of fragmentation on the ecology of natural systems. A. Siddiqui 3 Acknowledgments Firstly, I would like to extend my thanks to Mitacs, for funding this research and making my project possible. Thank you to my internal supervisor, Dr. Danijela Puric-Mladenovic, whose knowledge and expertise guided this work to completion. She has been inspiring, patient, and always ready to answer my technical questions. I would also like to thank my external supervisor, Jackie Hamilton, who gave me the opportunity me to contribute to the meaningful work of the Greenbelt Foundation. My experience with the Foundation was incredibly fulfilling and enjoyable, despite the COVID-19 pandemic's unpredictability and restrictions. Special thanks to Anna Shortly and Kathy McPherson for their help and feedback! Lastly, I want to thank my cohort, friends, and family for their support. A. Siddiqui 4 Table of Contents Abstract _____________________________________________________________________ 2 Acknowledgments _____________________________________________________________ 3 Table of Contents______________________________________________________________ 4 List of Tables _________________________________________________________________ 5 List of Figures ________________________________________________________________ 6 List of Appendices _____________________________________________________________ 7 Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 8 Background __________________________________________________________________ 8 Objectives __________________________________________________________________ 11 Methodology ________________________________________________________________ 12 Results _____________________________________________________________________ 16 Discussion __________________________________________________________________ 26 Conclusion & Recommendations ________________________________________________ 29 References __________________________________________________________________ 31 Appendices _________________________________________________________________ 33 A. Siddiqui 5 List of Tables Table 1: Description of the reporting (planning) units analysed in the study. _________________________ 12 Table 2: Effective Mesh Size values inside and outside the Greenbelt (GH0) for 2011 and 2016. _________ 16 Table 3: Effective mesh size and density across the ecoregions of the GH for 2011 and 2016. ___________ 22 A. Siddiqui 6 List of Figures Figure 1: Reporting units in the Golden Horseshoe. ____________________________________________ 13 Figure 2: Reporting units for the Greenbelt area (a) and its policy designations (b). ___________________ 13 Figure 3: Effective mesh size CBC (a) and CUT (b) across the Greenbelt’s policy designations in 2011 and 2016. _________________________________________________________________________________ 16 2 Figure 4: Comparison of the effective mesh size in km (meff) and density (Seff) across upper and single-tier municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe, between 2011 and 2016. _________________________________ 19 2 Figure 5:Effective mesh size in km (meff) CBC across municipalities of the Golden Horseshoe. _________ 20 2 Figure 6: Effective mesh size CBC (meff) in km across lower and single-tier municipalities of the Golden Horseshoe. ____________________________________________________________________________ 20 Figure 7: Distribution of effective mesh size values in lower and single-tier municipalities of the GH. ____ 21 Figure 8: Ecoregions of the Golden Horseshoe. _______________________________________________ 22 Figure 9: Effective mesh size CUT (a) and CBC (b) across secondary watersheds in the Golden Horseshoe, representing 2011 and 2016. _______________________________________________________________ 23 Figure 10: The relative effective mesh size (km2) distributed across secondary watersheds in the GH. _____ 24 Figure 11: Effective mesh size CBC (km2) for tertiary watersheds in the Golden Horseshoe for 2011 (a) and 2016 (b). ______________________________________________________________________________ 25 A. Siddiqui 7 List of Appendices Appendix 1:List of sources for all spatial data. ________________________________________________ 33 Appendix 2: Reclassification scheme for SOLRIS 2.0 and 3.0. ___________________________________ 34 Appendix 3: Effective mesh size (meff) and density (Seff) across policy designations in the Greenbelt for 2011 and 2016.______________________________________________________________________________ 35 Appendix 4: Effective mesh size (meff) and density (Seff) in 2011 and 2016 across upper- and single-tier municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe. _____________________________________________________ 36 Appendix 5: Report of meff and Seff for lower and single-tier municipalities across the GH, in 2011 and 2016. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 37 Appendix 6: Effective mesh size (meff) and density (Seff) for the secondary watersheds within the GH. ____ 44 Appendix 7: Effective mesh size (meff) and density (Seff) across tertiary watersheds in the GH, in 2011 and 2016. _________________________________________________________________________________ 45 A. Siddiqui 8 Introduction Background Urbanization is at the forefront of pressures on biodiversity in Canada, resulting in an ever- increasing number of species-at-risk and habitat degradation (Spang et al., 2012). The resulting decline in ecosystem health is significantly amplified in Canada’s most populated and developed region, southern Ontario. Historically, the biodiversity of this region was devastated by land clearing for settlement and agriculture. However, natural cover and biodiversity still decline due to rapid urbanization and natural cover fragmentation. To promote sustainable development and reduce pressure on natural environment, Ontario has introduced several modes of legislation over the past two decades, such as the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in 2004 and its accompanying Greenbelt Plan in 2005. The Growth Plan specifies the boundary of the Golden Horseshoe (GH). The GH of southern Ontario is a rapidly developing metropolitan region, home to over 65% of Ontario’s population, and is located in the heart of the Great Lakes region (Ali, 2008). The GH region encompasses the Greater Toronto Area, including sensitive, ecologically valuable landforms like the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine (OMMAH, 2017a). In 2005, the Greenbelt Act established Ontario’s Greenbelt, a permanently protected band spanning nearly 2 million acres of agricultural and natural lands within the GH (OMMAH, 2017a). The establishment of greenbelts around urban areas dates back to the pre-industrial era in the United Kingdom when they served to stop urban growth and protect agricultural lands from urban encroachment (Ali, 2008). Greenbelt roles have since expanded to include the preservation of natural vegetation and sensitive natural areas. Today, greenbelts have been implemented in several countries, including South Korea, New Zealand, the United States, and Canada (Ali, 2008). Specifically, Ontario’s Greenbelt provides an estimated CAD $2.7 billion in ecological goods and services annually to those in and around