Context Many connectivity metrics have been used to measure the connectivity of a landscape and to evaluate the effects of land-use changes and potential mitigation measures. However, there are still gaps in our understanding of how to accurately quantify landscape connectivity. Objectives A number of metrics only measure between-patch connectivity, i.e. the connectivity between different habitat patches, which can produce misleading results. This paper demonstrates that the inclusion of within-patch connectivity is important for accurate results. Methods The behavior of two metrics is compared: the Connectance Index ( CONNECT ), which measures only between-patch connectivity, and the effective mesh size ( m eff ), which includes both within-patch and between-patch connectivity. The connectivity values of both metrics were calculated on a set of simulated landscapes. Twenty cities were then added to these landscapes to calculate the resulting changes in connectivity. Results We found that when using CONNECT counter-intuitive results occurred due to not including within-patch connectivity, such as scenarios where connectivity increased with increasing habitat loss and fragmentation. These counter-intuitive results were resolved when using m eff . For example, landscapes with low habitat amount may be particularly sensitive to urban development, but this is not reflected by CONNECT . Conclusions Applying misleading results from metrics like CONNECT can have detrimental effects on natural ecosystems, because reductions in within-patch connectivity by human activities are neglected. Therefore, this paper provides evidence for the crucial need to consider the balance between within-patch connectivity and between-patch connectivity when calculating the connectivity of landscapes.