Metrics of functional connectivity are necessary to understand the influence of habitat loss and fragmentation on biodiversity outcomes. Effective metrics must capture three landscape characteristics: i) habitat availability, ii) probability of movement between habitat patches and iii) habitat quality. Patch area has generally been used as a surrogate for quality such that a bias towards fewer, larger patches exists in connectivity research (mirrored across conservation science). We argue that this approach neglects species of conservation concern in highly fragmented landscapes that may persist where dispersal and habitat availability override minimum patch size requirements. We provide solutions to address this bias