Limitations.--All core area indices are affected by the interaction of patch size, patch shape, and the specified edge depths, except for those based on the MAT skeleton as noted above. In particular, increasing edge depths or shape complexity, or decreasing patch size will decrease core area, and vice versa. On the one hand, this may be desirable as an integrative measure that has explicit functional relevance to the organism or process under consideration. On the other hand, there are potential pitfalls associated with integrative measures like core area. In particular, the confounding of patch area and configuration effects can complicate interpretation. For example, if the core area is small, it indicates that very little core area is available, but it does not discriminate between a small patch (area effect) and a large patch with a complex shape (configuration effect). In addition, core area is meaningful only if the specified depth-of-edge distance is meaningful to the phenomenon under investigation. Unfortunately, in many cases there is no empirical basis for specifying any particular depth-of-edge effect and so it must be chosen somewhat arbitrarily. The usefulness of core area as a metric is directly related to the arbitrariness in the specified edge depths, and this should be clearly understood when using these metrics.

Ultimately, the utility of core area metrics compared to their patch area counterparts depends on the resolution, minimum patch dimensions, and edge influence distance(s) employed. For example, given a landscape with a resolution of 1 m² and minimum patch dimensions of 100 x 100 m, if an edge influence distance of 1 m is specified, then core area and patch area will be nearly identical and core area will be relatively insensitive to differences in patch size and shape. In this case, core area offers little over its patch area counterpart.