We developed a general iterative algorithm for analyzing the influence of habitat destruction on the equilibrium abundances of species in a competitive metacommunity exposed to habitat destruction, based on the multi-species competitive model proposed by Tilman et al. We focus on the four cases put forward by Tilman et al. that reflect different relationships between the equilibrium abundances of species in an intact habitat and their dispersal or competitive abilities: (1) best competitors most abundant and equal mortality; (2) equally abundant species and equal mortality; (3) poorer competitors more abundant and equal mortality; (4) equally abundant but poorer competitors with higher mortality. For cases 1 and 2, the previous studies have clearly elucidated the impacts of habitat destruction on the equilibrium abundances of species under these two cases. Case 3 has a complex mathematical formulation. Thus, the pervious investigators had to replace case 3 by a simplified formulation during exploring the impact of habitat destruction on the equilibrium abundances of species. For case 4, the influence of habitat destruction on the equilibrium abundances of species was not analyzed because the mathematical formulation of case 4 is more complex. The iterative algorithm of the current study can be used to analyze the impacts of habitat destruction on the equilibrium abundances of species for all four cases. We find that the relationship between habitat destruction and equilibrium abundance of any species is linear between two adjacent proportions of permanently destroyed sites which can drive one species to extinction. Our results by using the iterative program accord with the conclusions by analytical methods for cases 1 and 2. We also find the effect of habitat destruction on the equilibrium abundances of species for case 4, which has not been reported by previous research. Let s be the number of extinct species for case 4. If s is an odd number, species s+1 is the best competitor and occupies the most sites around the critical proportion of permanently destroyed sites, which drives species s to extinction. However, the abundance of species s+1 will gradually descend with the proportion of permanently destroyed sites increasing. When the proportion of permanently destroyed sites approximates to (but less than) the level which can drive species s+1 to extinction, species s+2 is the best competitor and species s+1 is the worst competitor. The order of the equilibrium abundances is s+2~s+4 ~ s+6~…~s+5~s+3 ~ s+1. This conclusion still holds for case 4 when s is an even number. We find that the impact of habitat destruction on the equilibrium abundances of species for case 4 is very similar to that of case 2. For case 2, the equilibrium abundance lines of species between two adjacent critical proportions of permanently destroyed sites, which can drive one species to extinction, have a common intersection; however, for case 4, the equilibrium lines do not have a common intersection. In addition, we compare the results using the original and simplified formulations of case 3. We find that there is a slight difference in the impacts of habitat destruction on the equilibrium abundances of species between using the original and simplified formulations.