Abstract
The conflict between wildlife and traffic is not a new phenomenon. Where the movement paths of humans and wildlife intersect, the consequences are often detrimental for both. Collisions between traffic and wildlife results in loss of life, injury, and vehicle damage. Roads and railways not only inflict death on wildlife but also impose barriers to movements, fragment habitats, and permit the spread of additional impacts due to secondary development. The overall effect of transportation infrastructure on wildlife by far exceeds the physical imprint of roads on the landscape and, as transportation networks continue to develop, the amount of unfragmented natural habitat is shrinking at an alarming pace. As a prominent global issue, it is essential that we mitigate the impacts of roads and railways on wildlife and the impacts of wildlife on traffic, in order to ensure successful cohabitation of people and wildlife. In this chapter, we discuss the most prominent and critical problems with traffic and wildlife and explain how effective mitigation strategies can be developed. We argue that the mitigation approach must become an integral part in the design and planning of transport infrastructure. The conflict between wildlife and humans along transportation corridors may be inevitable, but it is possible to find a solution.
Keywords
1 Introduction
Problems between wildlife and traffic are well acknowledged and on the rise in many countries. Not only is there ample evidence for the negative effect of traffic and infrastructure on wildlife, but the presence and movement of animals impose a growing traffic safety issue. These conflicts appear inevitable and will require more effective mitigation, given the anticipated expansion of transportation infrastructure. However, can these conflicts be resolved?
Countries, societies, and economies depend heavily on a safe, efficient, and well-connected transport system, and this demand is constantly growing. Every day, more than 2 billion vehicles are estimated to travel on the 64 million kilometers of road that currently transect our globe (Sperling and Gordon 2009; CIA 2013). European transport policies (e.g., The EU White Book on Transport, European Commision 2011) as well as international transportation strategies (e.g., OECD/ITF 2017 or the Belt and Road Initiative, Cai 2017; The Economist 2017) aim at unifying transportation corridors across countries and even continents. These designated corridors aim to ensure efficient mobility with fast intermodal transport and demounted legal, technical, and physical barriers. Although these strategies mainly focus on transport along roads, the use and demand of rail transportation is growing as well (Stewart et al. 2014; Upton 2016). According to the International Transport Forum, passenger mobility on railroads may increase by a staggering 200–300% by 2050, and freight activity may increase by as much as 150–250% (OECD/ITF 2017; UN 2016), which will require 335 thousand kilometers of railway (Dulac 2013). In order to support this anticipated increase in traffic, the world’s road network should increase by 60% by 2050 (from 2010), requiring an additional 25 million kilometers of road (Dulac 2013).
Transportation networks threaten the goals of international policies on biodiversity conservation. European legal frameworks and policies such as the Habitat Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Bern Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, ETS no. 104) state that species of community interest shall be kept at a favorable conservation status and that biodiversity values and ecosystem services shall not be diminished (European Parliament 2012). Thus, we are supposed to maintain viable and thriving wildlife populations that facilitate healthy ecosystem services. This requires that populations are of a sufficient size and have sufficiently connected habitats so that stochastic variations in local fecundity and survival can be compensated for by immigration from neighboring populations (Hodgson et al. 2009; Nicholsson and Ovaskainen 2009). However, roads and railways can threaten this connectivity and movement.
Connected habitats are necessary for biodiversity preservation; however, few landscape around the globe remain unfragmented and “roadless” (Ibisch et al. 2016). More than 97% of the terrestrial surface of the United States is within 5 km of a road (Riitters and Wickham 2003). In Sweden, one of the least fragmented countries in Europe, more than 70% of the managed forests are within 500 m to the nearest road access (Seiler and Folkeson 2006). In southern parts of the country, the average mesh size (i.e., the size of the areas not subdivided by roads) within the network of public roads is less than 4 km2 (Seiler et al. 2016), while it drops down to 1 km2 in the Netherlands (van Langevelde et al. 2009) and 0.25 km2 in Belgium (Trocmé et al. 2003). This leaves little or no space for most animals to establish home ranges that are not dissected by roads. Species with large home ranges, such as carnivores (e.g., wolf, Canis lupus (Mattisson et al. 2013); red fox, Vulpes vulpes (Walton et al. 2017)) and large ungulates (red deer, Cervus elaphus (Jerina 2012); moose, Alces alces (Olsson et al. 2010)), will have to cross roads regularly during their daily activities and face a significant risk of collision.
Road mortality is one of the main negative impacts of roads on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In some species, road mortality exacerbates other factors that are already causing a decline in population size. For example, road mortality accounts for 17% of the annual mortality of the endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) in Spain (Ferreras et al. 1992), 35% of the annual mortality of the endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) in the USA (Taylor et al. 2002), and for approximately 50% of the known mortality in badgers (Meles meles) in Sweden (Seiler et al. 2003). Traffic is speculated to overtake hunting as the leading cause of vertebrate mortality on land by people (Forman and Alexander 1998). Expanding transportation networks will further fragment landscapes, reduce the size of roadless habitats, increase mortality, isolate habitats, and disturb the areas adjacent to the road, ultimately threatening the persistence of wildlife species in the landscape (Ibisch et al. 2016).
Not all impacts of roads are detrimental to wildlife and not all species are equally sensitive (Rytwinski and Fahrig 2015). Some species may even benefit from new habitats or food provided by road verges. If managed appropriately, the vegetated verges along roads and railways can sustain a variety of flora and small fauna despite being polluted and disturbed (Bellamy et al. 2000; Milton et al. 2015; Rosell Pagès et al. 2016; Villemey et al. 2018). Species that can benefit from these verge habitats include not only opportunistic species and pioneers but also some endangered species that may otherwise no longer be able to survive in the surrounding anthropogenic landscape (Havlin 1987; Helldin et al. 2015; Spooner 2015; Bernes et al. 2016). Infrastructure verges can also perform many other functions, such as producing seeds for adjacent landscapes; filtering traffic noise, light, and runoff water into the surroundings; providing a safety buffer for traffic; or being of aesthetic value for road users (Milton et al. 2015). However, such verges need an optimal design and regular maintenance. If not well maintained, verge habitats may constitute ecological traps that drain wildlife populations from the surrounding landscape rather than supporting them (Clevenot et al. 2018), may aid the spread of weeds and invasive species (Kalwij et al. 2008), or attract larger wildlife with palatable forage or road salt, obscure their detectability, and thus increase collision risks (Planillo et al. 2018). The potentials and the limitations of road and rail corridors to contribute to the ecological, “green infrastructure” of the landscape is now well recognized (Benedict and McMahon 2006; European Commission 2013). The open challenge to road administrations, as proclaimed by the international expert network of road ecologists, is to find a balance between the positive and the hazardous effects of road verges (IENE declaration 2016).
We can resolve the growing conflict between developing efficient transportation systems and achieving biodiversity conservation goals by addressing these conflicts head-on (Alamgir et al. 2017; Laurance et al. 2014). Current international policies in the field of nature conservation, such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 2014) and the EU-wide Strategy on Green Infrastructure (European Commission 2013), recognize the transport sector and transportation facilities as important players in the endeavor toward a greener and sustainable future. Yet implementation of these policies appears to be lagging behind. Failing to incorporate nature conservation into transportation design does not appear to be due to a lack of technical or biological knowhow, but rather due to political challenges. People are the main end-users given priority in transportation projects. All other “factors” are secondary and are often not given any priority at all. We urge road agencies to look at the issue from a different perspective. Instead of maintaining that the problem is that “the deer crosses the road,” we must remember that it is in fact “the road that crosses the forest.” Moving forward, designs for sustainable transportation infrastructure should not only meet the needs of the immediate users and customers but also be integrated into the process of enhancing the coexistence between humans and wildlife. The incorporation of wildlife provisions into infrastructure planning from the beginning can help prevent irreversible damage, enhance potentially positive effects, and save money for expensive repairs in the end.
In this chapter, we focus on two significant aspects in the conflict between wildlife and traffic: barrier effects and traffic mortality. The conflict between wildlife and traffic requires special and growing attention, but can be mitigated by an updated, direct, approach.
2 Identifying the Conflict: Disruptions to Movement
The intersection of transportation infrastructure and wildlife habitat is often detrimental for wildlife and humans alike. On one hand, roads and railways disrupt natural flows and processes (such as wildlife movements across the landscape), kill animals as they attempt to cross, and ultimately threaten the persistence of wildlife populations (Rytwinski and Fahrig 2015; Torres et al. 2016). On the other hand, collisions between vehicles and large animals can be fatal for drivers and passengers or at least produce costly material damage and long delays in traffic. In both cases, the movement of both subjects, humans and wildlife, is affected, and individuals may face mortality. Identifying these disruptions to movement and mitigating them early in the planning process is essential if we intend to provide a safe and efficient transport network for all.
2.1 Disrupting the Movement of Wildlife
The barrier effect of transportation infrastructure to wildlife results from a combination of physical hindrances, behavioral avoidance effects, and traffic mortality (Fig. 6.1, see review in Seiler 2003; Rytwinski and Fahrig 2015). Not only large mammals but also many other wildlife species including arthropods, small mammals, and reptiles experience physical difficulties when attempting to cross fences, gullies, road embankments and the road surface itself (Mader and Pauritsch 1981; Swihart and Slade 1984; Mader et al. 1990; Richardson et al. 1997; Anderson et al. 2002; Andrews and Gibbons 2005; Kornilev et al. 2006). Many individuals also refrain from entering the open road corridor (Rost and Bailey 1979; van der Zande et al. 1980; Abbott et al. 2015). Those species that still dare to move onto the road face the risk of collision with vehicles. Therefore, only a small fraction of the animals attempting to cross an infrastructure corridor will eventually succeed. As a rule of thumb, roads with more than 10,000 vehicles per day should be considered absolute barriers to most wildlife, while roads with intermediate traffic volumes may be considered as a significant source of mortality (Müller and Berthoud 1995; Iuell et al. 2003; Jacobson et al. 2016).
Barriers and mortality affect two key factors of wildlife population viability: dispersal and survival (Fahrig 2003; Jaeger et al. 2005). Barrier effects impede mobility, reduce the access to necessary foraging and breeding habitat, and limit the exchange of individuals and genes between populations. Depending on the species, the strength of the barrier, and the size of the isolated habitat/population, these impacts can occur in a single breeding season or take generations to manifest (Rytwinski and Fahrig 2012). Road mortality reduces population survival rates and can drain local populations (Rhodes et al. 2014; Torres et al. 2016). Species with slow reproduction rates, sparse populations, high mobility, and extensive spatial requirements are particularly exposed and sensitive to mortality on transportation networks (Coffin 2007; Rytwinski and Fahrig 2015; Seiler et al. 2016). By addressing and mitigating the barrier effect and road mortality impacts of roads on animals, we can improve dispersal and the survival of wildlife populations in our landscapes.
Disturbances from transportation corridors and traffic can have far-reaching consequences on the environment (Mader et al. 1990; Fahrig et al. 1995; Coffin 2007; Shepard et al. 2008). Light, noise, and chemicals can spread from the road or railway into the surrounding landscape, degrading the ecological and biological capacity of the adjacent habitats, and hindering animals from approaching or crossing the transportation corridor (Forman et al. 2003). Chemical pollutants , like nitrogen or road salt, usually affect flora and fauna in close proximity to infrastructure, while noise from vehicles and groundwater effects may spread much further (Reck and Kaule 1993; Forman and Alexander 1998). The extent of the spread of the impacts of roads is known as a “road-effect zone” (Forman and Alexander 1998) and, depending on the mobility and spatial requirements of the species, it can extend up to 1 km for some species of birds and to 5 km for some species of mammals (see review in: Benitez-Lopez et al. 2010). The road-effect zone can exceed the physical imprint of roads and railways more than tenfold (Forman and Alexander 1998; Forman and Deblinger 2000) and can amplify the barrier effect of roads on wildlife – species with large road-effect zones tend to be more isolated. Given the deleterious impact that barrier effect and road mortality can have on biodiversity, improving the movement of wildlife through the landscape should be a top concern for road agencies and land-use planners.
2.2 Disrupting the Movement of People
Reducing the immediate collateral impact to humans and traffic is one of the primary motivations for addressing the conflict between wildlife and transportation infrastructure (Conover et al. 1995; Joyce and Mahoney 2001; Huijser et al. 2009; Seiler et al. 2016). Collisions with large-bodied wildlife regularly results in material damage, human injury, and sometimes even human death. In Europe, at least 500,000 ungulate-vehicle collisions (UVC) occur per year, resulting in over 300 human deaths, 30,000 injuries, and over USD $1 billion in material damage (Bruinderink and Hazebroek 1996). Over 100 million vertebrate road kills per year occur in Spain (Caletrio et al. 1996), producing an estimated annual economic cost of about 105 million euros (Sáenz-de-Santa-María and Tellería 2015). In the Netherlands, an estimated minimum of 5500 UVC occur annually, resulting in 80 human injuries and an overall societal cost of 17 million euros (Ooms 2010). Finally, in Britain, estimates point up to 74,000 UVC per year with an average cost of about 25,000 euros per incident (Langbein 2007; Langbein et al. 2011). Although already quite high, all of these UVC estimates are conservative, as many collisions go unreported (Hesse and Roy 2016); thus it is important to regard these figures as minimum estimates and not absolute numbers (Seiler and Jägerbrand 2016). Although discussed less commonly, the impact of wildlife on railway traffic is increasingly recognized. Train collisions with large-bodied animals can cause expensive repairs and extensive delays, especially on high-speed rail systems (Fig. 6.2, Seiler et al. 2014; Borda-de-Água et al. 2017). In Sweden, approximately 2700 UVC with trains are registered annually, producing a societal bill estimated to 150 million euros per year (Seiler et al. 2014; Seiler and Olsson 2017).
Swedish car drivers are legally obliged to report any accident with ungulates and large carnivores to the police, allowing for a comprehensive and reliable data record. During the late 1960s, around 1800 deer-vehicle collisions were recorded in Sweden, evoking national concern and initiating a comprehensive research and prevention program (Almkvist et al. 1980). This led to the fencing of over 7000 km of public roads (Swedish Transport Administration in 2016). Despite these efforts, the number of UVC quickly increased as ungulate populations grew, reaching 27,000 UVC in 1999 (Seiler 2004). By 2016, there were more than 60,000 accidents (NVR 2018), which carried an estimated societal cost of over 250 million euros (Seiler et al. 2016). The greatest concern was accidents with moose; due to the large body mass and long legs of the animal, collisions inflict serious neck and head trauma, if not fatal injuries to the driver and passengers of the car (Jägerbrand et al. 2018). Luckily, thanks to improved vehicle technologies and a strong traffic safety policy on preventing human fatalities (Trafikverket 2012), the trend in severe human injuries and fatalities is decreasing despite an increasing number of incidents overall (Seiler, unpublished data; Strandroth 2015). If traffic volume and ungulate populations continue to rise, and their conflicts are not properly addressed and mitigated now, it is easy to see that UVCs may grow to an unmanageable extent, to the detriment of both humans and wildlife.
3 Addressing and Mitigating the Conflict
Successful mitigation of wildlife-traffic conflicts depends on a working cooperation between transportation agencies, ecologists, economists, sociologists, engineers, landowners, and the general transport customer, i.e., drivers. Local policies and strategies must reflect international and national concern, and local actions must be based on quantifiable goals and measureable targets (Seiler and Sjölund 2005; van der Ree et al. 2015b). This often means aiming higher than the minimum requirement for species conservation or habitat protection described in laws and standards. Although it may seem like a daunting, insurmountable challenge, only through purposeful planning and detail-oriented execution of mitigation strategies can we alleviate and minimize the conflict between wildlife, people, and transportation.
To minimize and avoid the conflict between wildlife and linear infrastructure we must change the way we approach the issue. Too often, we consider human mobility and the mobility in wildlife as separate issues, despite the necessity of both, humans and wildlife, to travel through the landscape. While humans create a web of physical “gray” infrastructures, wildlife use a more obscure and diffuse network of “green infrastructures”. Where gray and green infrastructures intersect, we must develop ways to separate the movements of humans and wildlife while maintaining connectivity in both (IENE 2012). Successful examples of such endeavors for existing transportation networks can be found in the Dutch defragmentation plan (Rijkswaterstaat 2004), the Swiss defragmentation plan (Trocmé 2005), and the German plan for wildlife and roads (Hänel and Reck 2011). In Sweden, a special Guideline for Landscapes has been published, setting standards for mitigation for wildlife while planning new infrastructure projects (Trafikverket 2015).
The three basic approaches in addressing the impact of transportation infrastructure and traffic on wildlife are avoidance, mitigation, and compensation (Iuell et al. 2003). Avoiding damage is better than repairing it, but where an impact cannot be prevented, mitigation measures must be installed to limit the negative effects. When mitigation is insufficient or impossible, implementation of compensation measures is necessary, but only as a last resort. Identifying which approach is the correct one to take can be challenging since humans and wildlife utilize the landscape on different scales. For example, we may avoid the destruction of a breeding pond for amphibians by rerouting a new road outside the critical habitat, but still cause high mortality in animals that move to and from the breeding habitat or isolate the local population due to unresolved barrier effects caused by the road. Destroyed or disturbed local breeding habitats may be compensated by creating new habitats elsewhere, but as long as the road is present in the landscape, the fragmentation effect resides. For large species, barrier and mortality effects are inevitable and cannot entirely be avoided nor compensated for. Instead, they require direct mitigation on site. Thus, understanding the scales at which impacts are detrimental for wildlife is essential to reduce these impacts, and the identification of appropriate methods, to address these problems.
3.1 Reducing the Impact Begins with Planning
Planning of transport infrastructure at the landscape scale is essential and requires specific attention, especially when hitherto unfragmented and unexploited areas are in question (Laurance et al. 2006; Laurance and Balmford 2013; Laurance 2015). Where it can threaten the survival of a population, construction of transport infrastructure should be avoided entirely and these areas should remain unfragmented (DeVelice and Martin 2001; Selva et al. 2015). This is particularly true for landscapes that support endemic or endangered populations, landscapes that are part of an important migration corridor, or landscapes with important or sensitive habitat that cannot be replaced or replicated (Selva et al. 2011). It is important to critically think of the project and determine if new “gray” infrastructure is indeed the only option to meet the growing transportation needs (Fig. 6.3). The only true way to ensure no net impact on wildlife is to avoid construction of new roads and railways where possible.
Where new transportation infrastructure is necessary, every stage of the project, from strategic planning to operation, must incorporate mitigation strategies for wildlife (Table 6.1, Seiler and Eriksson 1997; Roberts and Sjölund 2015). The planning stage must include clearly defining tangible goals for wildlife management, such as percentage of intended road mortality reduction or connectivity increase, with realistic targets to work towards (van Der Grift et al. 2016). This will help develop rules, standards, and effective solutions at both strategic and practical levels. Recent handbooks on infrastructure ecology (e.g., Iuell et al. 2003; van der Ree et al. 2015b; Borda-de-Água et al. 2017; van der Grift et al. 2017) provide general support and advice in this process. These guidelines should be adapted to fit the needs of national transport authorities and to be able to be incorporated within their infrastructure development “toolkit.”
3.2 Mitigating Road Mortality and Barrier Effects
To date, the most effective, albeit expensive, solution to mitigate wildlife and traffic conflicts is the combination of exclusion fences and crossing structures (Iuell et al. 2003; Putman et al. 2004; Huijser et al. 2008; Bissonette and Rosa 2012; van der Ree et al. 2015a). Exclusion fencing will keep wildlife from entering the road and lead them toward safe crossing facilities, provided the fences are well-designed and maintained. Fences need to be sufficiently tall (the species of interest should not be able to climb over), robust, and continuous, leaving no holes or gaps where animals could sneak through, or crawl under. Crossing structures can provide effective connection through the landscape for wildlife, as long as they appear safe to use by wildlife and are well-positioned in landscape (e.g., following known migration routes or connecting two patches of necessary habitat; Beckmann et al. 2010; van der Ree et al. 2015a; Bhardwaj et al. 2017). Although commonly implemented, fencing and crossing structures need to be adapted to the target species (e.g., Clevenger and Waltho 2005; Ascensão and Mira 2006; Seiler and Olsson 2009; Smith et al. 2015; Bhardwaj et al. 2017). Solutions for amphibians will necessarily be different from solutions for ungulates, but both can potentially be combined in a multiple-species approach. Standards and guidelines for the design of fences and passages are proposed and published in handbooks such as the Handbook of Road Ecology (van der Ree et al. 2015b) and the European Handbook on Wildlife and Traffic (Iuell et al. 2003, and its updated online version: https://handbookwildlifetraffic.info).
A variety of solutions are available, but which design may be most appropriate or how many crossing structures are needed will differ from case to case and depend on the overall mitigation objectives. As proposed in the Austrian prioritization approach (Woess et al. 2002), expensive investments in a single large wildlife crossing structure (e.g., overpass or ecoduct) may be necessary and justified where infrastructure crosses important interregional wildlife corridors. In cases of more local significance, mitigation objectives may be met by constructing a series of smaller, species-specific solutions. Understanding the landscape and the needs of the target species is essential to mitigate the intersection between gray and green infrastructure and ensure continued wildlife movement and traffic safety (IENE 2012).
3.3 Identifying the Problem Helps Identifying the Solution
Mitigating the impacts of roads on wildlife is not always straightforward. The discussion often involves infrastructure planners choosing between installing fencing that keep animals off the roadway, investing in crossing structures to allow for continued movement, or simply accepting a certain level of isolation and mortality. Economic costs and benefits of these options can be compared (Huijser et al. 2008, 2009; Seiler et al. 2016), but it may be unclear how much mitigation is actually needed to comply with species conservation needs, legal requirements, and policy objectives or where to employ which type of solution. This is often because there are many case-specific factors that influence these decisions. The type of transportation corridor and its features (e.g., size, traffic volume etc.), the landscape through which it is constructed and the response of the animals needs to guide decision-making.
Barrier effects and road mortality are often present together; however, their relative importance differs between species. While some animals (such as large carnivores or ungulates) may be able to recognize vehicles as a potential threat and refrain from crossing busy roads or railways, others (such as amphibians) may be entirely ignorant of the danger (Jacobson et al. 2016; Seiler et al. 2016). As traffic increases, the first group of species will experience elevated barrier effects, while the latter will pay an increasing death toll. Therefore, it is important to understand the ecosystem in which the road is constructed, to be able to plan mitigation that appropriately targets the species of concern.
Geospatial data on wildlife mortality or wildlife-vehicle collisions can help to locate hotspots where mitigation may be needed (Bíl et al. 2013; Rea et al. 2014; Gunson and Teixeira 2015). This data may be difficult to come by, but recent citizen-science projects such as the Austrian project Roadkill (www.roadkill.at, Heigl et al. 2016) or the California Roadkill Observation System (http://www.wildlifecrossing.net, Shilling and Waetjen 2015) suggest a promising approach that not only provides data but also involves and educates the public. Other valuable sources, though available for fewer species, may be police records (e.g., Seiler 2004; Hothorn et al. 2012), hunter reports (e.g., Heigl et al. 2016), train driver reports (e.g., Seiler and Olsson 2017), or records made by road maintenance services (e.g., Shilling and Waetjen 2015). Sufficient data is the foundation for implementing effective mitigation strategies in appropriate places in the landscape.
Identifying barrier effects can be more challenging than identifying mortality hotspots, as there are fewer “easy-to-measure” variables for barrier effects than there are for mortality (Zimmermann Teixeira et al. 2017). High accident frequencies may indicate high barrier effects if most animals approaching to cross the road are killed. However, it may also indicate that animals are frequently moving across this road but some get hit. Low mortality rate, on the other hand, may suggest that animals are capable of avoiding collisions when crossing the road, or it may indicate a strong barrier effect that animals are deterred from approaching the road. For some species, radiotelemetry data can be used to map their movements and predict where crossings are likely to occur (Kämmerle et al. 2017; Neumann et al. 2012). In other species, it may be possible to obtain their probable movement path from expert knowledge on habitat preferences and general movement characteristics (Zeller et al. 2015). Even though it is difficult, it is essential to identify barrier effects of transportation on wildlife, to best plan installation of appropriate mitigation strategies.
Different processes may cause barrier or mortality impacts and understanding the mechanisms of these impacts in different species is important when choosing an appropriate mitigation strategy (Jacobson et al. 2016). If the animals are mostly threatened or deterred by traffic, crossing structures in combination with leading fences, light screens, or noise protection walls may prove effective (Beckmann et al. 2010; van der Ree et al. 2015a). Traffic rerouting or traffic calming may offer other powerful alternatives (Jaarsma and Willems 2002; van Langevelde and Jaarsma 2009). For animals, such as deer, that respond to vehicles but are less afraid of traffic itself, level crossings with driver warning systems may provide a cost-effective mitigation – albeit only on minor to intermediate roads (Huijser et al. 2015). In situations where the avoidance of street lighting is the cause of the barrier, mitigation strategies may include the removal of the light, modifying light fixture location, emission spectrum and intensity, or light shielding techniques to reduce the spill of light into the surrounding habitat (Blackwell et al. 2015). Roads may be built of a substrate that is not easily traversed by some species such as mice (Brehme et al. 2013), and turtles and amphibians may be incapable of climbing over rails causing them to be trapped on railways (Kornilev et al. 2006). In both cases, minor adjustments to the barrier surface may provide effective means for mitigation. Some arboreal species, such as squirrel gliders (Petaurus norfolcensis) , may be incapable of crossing a road or railway if the gap in the canopy is too large and there are not enough trees to enable arboreal movement (van der Ree et al. 2010). Here, crossing structures like rope bridges or glider poles that reconnect forest canopies may overcome barrier problems for these species (van der Ree 2006; Soanes et al. 2013). Finally, on railways, wildlife warning devices that manage to scare animals from the train corridor shortly before a train approaches while allowing free passage during train-free intervals may be effective (Babińska-Werka et al. 2015; Seiler and Olsson 2017). Each of these strategies deliver a positive outcome; however how effective they are depends on how well they target the true mechanism(s) of the barrier effect and mortality for the focal species.
Successful mitigation of roads and railways on wildlife is possible, but it requires early planning and a thorough understanding of the environment through which the transportation corridor will transect. This includes identifying important landscape features, the true cause(s) of road impacts, the needs of the focal species, and the needs of the people using the roads. Transportation system that promotes the connectivity of, both, humans and wildlife can only be created through open collaboration among all stakeholders and through careful consideration of wildlife management throughout transportation infrastructure planning. Although conflicts between wildlife and traffic seem inevitable, they do not need to be unresolvable.
4 Conclusion: Conflict Resolution Begins by Changing the Way We View the Problem
The conflicts between wildlife and transportation infrastructure are not a mystery – where roads and railways exist, wildlife is impacted. Although the conflict is well known, it still does not receive adequate attention in infrastructure design. This needs to change. Although many (inter)national jurisdictions and policies require the protection of biodiversity, including species and habitats, the current legal framework is not sufficient, as it often merely marks the ultimate bottom line to prevent total extinction of a species. There is great potential to achieve much better outcomes for both humans and wildlife alike. Current knowledge and present technology can turn the conflict with wildlife into an opportunity to create safe and sustainable infrastructure. This ambitious target can be achieved if we: face the numerous challenges through interdisciplinary cooperation, develop common standards and rules, and integrate mitigation strategies throughout every stage of roads and railways design, including early stages. Reducing the conflict between wildlife and transportation infrastructure is possible, but it requires a change in perspective: “it is not the deer that crosses the road but the road that crosses the forest.”
References
Abbott IM, Berthinussen A, Stone E, Boonman M, Melber M, Altringham J (2015) Bats and roads. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, pp 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch34
Alamgir M, Campbell MJ, Sloan S, Goosem M, Clements GR, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF (2017) Economic, socio-political and environmental risks of road development in the tropics. Curr Biol 27:R1130–R1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.08.067
Almkvist B, André T, Ekblom S, Rempler SA (1980) Slutrapport Viltolycksprojekt (VIOL), vol TU146:1980-05. Vägverket Borlänge, Sweden
Anderson P, Sherwood B, Cutler D, Burton JA (2002) Roads as barriers. In: Wildlife and roads. Imperial College Press, London, pp 169–184
Andrews KM, Gibbons JW (2005) How do highways influence snake movement? Behavioral responses to roads and vehicles. Copeia 2005:772–782
Ascensão F, Mira A (2006) Factors affecting culvert use by vertebrates along two stretches of road in southern Portugal. Ecol Res 22:57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-006-0004-1
Babińska-Werka J, Krauze-Gryz D, Wasilewski M, Jasińska K (2015) Effectiveness of an acoustic wildlife warning device using natural calls to reduce the risk of train collisions with animals. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 38:6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.04.021
Beckmann JP, Clevenger AP, Huijser MP, Hilty JA (2010) Safe passages: highways, wildlife, and habitat connectivity. Island Press, Washington, DC
Bellamy PE, Shore RF, Ardeshir D, Treweek JR, Sparks TH (2000) Road verges as habitat for small mammals in Britain. Mammal Rev 30:131–139
Benedict MA, McMahon ET (2006) Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century. https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=643710
Benitez-Lopez A, Alkemade R, Verweij PA (2010) The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 143:1307–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.009
Bernes C, Bullock JM, Jakobsson S, Rundlof M, Verheyen K, Lindborg R (2016) How are biodiversity and dispersal of species affected by the management of roadsides? A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid 5:4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0329-7
Bhardwaj M, Soanes K, Straka TM, Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Lumsden LF, van der Ree R (2017) Differential use of highway underpasses by bats. Biol Conserv 212:22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.022
Bíl M, Andrášik R, Janoska Z (2013) Identification of hazardous road locations of traffic accidents by means of kernel density estimation and cluster significance evaluation. Accid Anal Prev 55:265–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Aap.2013.03.003
Bissonette JA, Rosa S (2012) An evaluation of a mitigation strategy for deer-vehicle collisions. Wildl Biol 18:414–423. https://doi.org/10.2981/11-122
Blackwell BF, DeVault TL, Seamans TW (2015) Understanding and mitigating the negative effect of road lighting on ecosystems. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 143–150
Borda-de-Água L, Barrientos R, Beja P, Pereira HM (2017) Railway ecology. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7_1
Brehme CS, Tracey JA, McClenaghan LR, Fisher RN (2013) Permeability of roads to movement of scrubland lizards and small mammals. Conserv Biol 27:710–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12081
Bruinderink GWTAG, Hazebroek E (1996) Ungulate traffic collisions in Europe. Conserv Biol 10:1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041059.x
Cai P (2017) Understanding China’s belt and road initiative, vol 2018. vol 2018-06-01. Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/understanding-belt-and-road-initiative
Caletrio J, Fernandez JM, Lopez J, Roviralta F (1996) Spanish national inventory on road mortality of vertebrates. Global Biodivers 5:15–18
CBD (2014) Global biodiversity outlook 4. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal. www.cbd.int/GBO4
CIA (2013) The world fact book 2013–14. Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC
Clevenger AP, Waltho N (2005) Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movement of large mammals. Biol Conserv 121:453–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.04.025
Clevenot L, Carré C, Pech P (2018) A review of the factors that determine whether stormwater ponds are ecological traps and/or high-quality breeding sites for amphibians. Front Ecol Evol 6:40. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00040
Coffin AW (2007) From roadkill to road ecology: a review of the ecological effects of roads. J Transp Geogr 15:396–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.006
Conover MR, Pitt WC, Kessler KK, Dubow TJ, Sanborn WA (1995) Review of human injuries, illnesses, and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildl Soc Bull 23:407–414
DeVelice RL, Martin JR (2001) Assessing the extent to which roadless areas complement the conservation of biological diversity. Ecol Appl 11:1008–1018. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[1008:ATETWR]2.0.CO,2
Dulac J (2013) Global land transport infrastructure requirements. International Energy Agency, Paris, 20, 2014
European Commision (2011) Accompanying paper to the white paper on transport. Commission staff working document. In: White paper on transport – roadmap to a single European transport area: towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system, vol SEC(2011) 391 final. European Commision, Brussles
European Commission (2013) Green infrastructure (GI) – enhancing Europe’s natural capital, vol COM (2013) 249 final. European Commission, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:d41348f2-01d5-4abe-b817-4c73e6f1b2df.0014.03/DOC_1&format=PDF
European Parliament (2012) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. European Parliament resolution of 20 April 2012 (2011/2307(INI)). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/EP_resolution_april2012.pdf
Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515. ISI: 000220102000018
Fahrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE, Taylor PD, Wegner JF (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biol Conserv 73:177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)00102-V
Ferreras P, Aldama JJ, Beltran JF, Delibes M (1992) Rates and causes of mortality in a fragmented population of Iberian Lynx Felis-Pardina Temminck, 1824. Biol Conserv 61:197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(92)91116-A
Forman RT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:207–231
Forman RT, Deblinger RD (2000) The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (USA) suburban highway. Conserv Biol 14:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99088.x
Forman RT et al (2003) Road ecology – science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC
Gunson K, Teixeira FZ (2015) Road–wildlife mitigation planning can be improved by identifying the patterns and processes associated with wildlife-vehicle collisions. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, pp 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch13
Hänel K, Reck H (2011) Bundesweite Prioriteten zur Wiedervernetzung von Ökosystemen: Die Überwindung strassenbedingter Barrieren vol Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt Heft 108. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN, Bonn, Bad Godesberg. http://www.bfn.de/0306_zerschneidung.html
Havlin J (1987) On the importance of railway lines for the avifauna in agrocoenoses. Folia Zool 36:345–358
Heigl F, Stretz C, Steiner W, Suppan F, Bauer T, Laaha G, Zaller J (2016) Comparing road-kill datasets from hunters and citizen scientists in a landscape context. Remote Sens 8:832. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8100832
Helldin J-O, Wissman J, Lennartsson T (2015) Abundance of red-listed species in infrastructure habitats – “responsibility species” as a priority-setting tool for transportation agencies’ conservation action. Nat Conserv 11:143–158. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.11.4433
Hesse G, Roy RV (2016) Quantifying wildlife vehicle collision underreporting on northern British Columbia highways (2004–2013). Unpublished report prepared for the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Canada. http://www.wildlifecollisions.ca/docs/quantifying_wvc_underreporting_april6-2016finalpdf:53
Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Thomas CD (2009) Metapopulation responses to patch connectivity and quality are masked by successional habitat dynamics. Ecology 90:1608–1619. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1227.1
Hothorn T, Brandl R, Müller J (2012) Large-scale model-based assessment of deer-vehicle collision risk. PLoS One 7:e29510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journalpone.0029510
Huijser MP, McGowen P, Clevenger AP, Ament R (2008) Wildlife-vehicle collision reduction study: best practices manual, vol DTFH61-05-D-00018. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Agency. http://ebookbrowse.com/huijser-et-al-2008-fhwa-manual-binder11-1-pdf-d29701169
Huijser MP, Duffield JW, Clevenger AP, Ament RJ, McGowen PT (2009) Cost-benefit analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with large ungulates in the United States and Canada: a decision support tool. Ecol Soc 14:15
Huijser MP, Mosler-Berger C, Olsson M, Strein M (2015) Wildlife warning signs and animal detection systems aimed at reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, pp 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch24
Ibisch PL et al (2016) A global map of roadless areas and their conservation status. Science 354:1423–1427. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7166
IENE (2012) IENE 2012 declaration: overcome barriers – Europe-wide and now. IENE. http://www.iene.info/declarations/overcome-barriers-europe-wide-now/. Accessed 2018-07-10
IENE (2016) IENE 2016 declaration: ecological design and maintenance for habitats related to transport infrastructures. IENE. http://www.iene.info/declarations/ecological-design-maintenance-habitats-related-transport-infrastructures/. Accessed 2018-07-10
Iuell B et al (2003) Wildlife and traffic – a European handbook for identifying conflicts and designing solutions. Prepared by COST 341 – habitat fragmentation due to transportation infrastructure. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Road and Hydraulic Engineering division, Delft. http://www.iene.info/wp-content/uploads/COST341_Handbook.pdf
Jaarsma C, Willems GPA (2002) Reducing habitat fragmentation by minor rural roads through traffic calming. Landsc Urban Plan 58:125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00215-8
Jacobson S, Bliss-Ketchum L, De Rivera C, Smith WP (2016) A behavior based framework for assessing barrier effects to wildlife from vehicle traffic volume. Ecosphere 7:e01345. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1345
Jaeger JA, Fahrig L, Haber W (2005). Reducing habitat fragmentation by roads: a comparison of measures and scales. UC Davis: Road Ecology Center. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3dd9z5r1
Jägerbrand AK, Gren I-M, Seiler A, Johansson Ö (2018) Uppdatering och nya effektsamband i effektmodellen för viltolyckor. Calluna AB, Linköping. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15211.23849
Jerina K (2012) Roads and supplemental feeding affect home-range size of Slovenian red deer more than natural factors. J Mammal 93:1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1644/11-MAMM-A-136.1
Joyce TL, Mahoney SP (2001) Spatial and temporal distributions of moose-vehicle collisions in Newfoundland. Wildl Soc Bull 29:281–291. ISI: 000168179900038
Kalwij JM, Milton SJ, McGeoch MA (2008) Road verges as invasion corridors? A spatial hierarchical test in an arid ecosystem. Landsc Ecol 23:439–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9201-3
Kämmerle JL, Brieger F, Kroschel M, Hagen R, Storch I, Suchant R (2017) Temporal patterns in road crossing behaviour in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) at sites with wildlife warning reflectors. PLoS One 12:e0184761. https://doi.org/10.1371/journalpone.0184761
Kornilev YV, Price SJ, Dorcas ME (2006) Between a rock and hard place: responses of Eastern Box Turtles (Terrapene carolina) when trapped between railroad tracks. Herpetol Rev 37:145–148
Langbein J (2007) National deer-vehicle collisions project. In: Deer initiative research report 07/1. The Deer Initiative, Wrexham, pp 215–259
Langbein J, Putman R, Pokorny B (2011) Traffic collisions involving deer and other ungulates in Europe and available measures for mitigation. In: Putman R, Apollonio M, Andersen R (eds) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 215–259
Laurance WF (2015) Bad roads, good roads. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, pp 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch2
Laurance WF, Balmford A (2013) Land use: a global map for road building. Nature 495:308–309. https://doi.org/10.1038/495308a
Laurance WF et al (2006) Impacts of roads and hunting on central African rainforest mammals. Conserv Biol 20:1251–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00420.x
Laurance WF et al (2014) A global strategy for road building. Nature. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13717
Mader HJ, Pauritsch G (1981) Nachweis des Barriere-Effektes von verkehrsarmen Straßen und Feldwegen auf Kleinsäuger der Waldbiozönose durch Markierungs- und Umsetzversuche. Natur und Landschaft 56:451–454
Mattisson J, Sand H, Wabakken P, Gervasi V, Liberg O, Linnell JD, Rauset GR, Pedersen HC (2013) Home range size variation in a recovering wolf population: evaluating the effect of environmental, demographic, and social factors Oecologia 173:813–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-013-2668-x
Mader HJ, Schell C, Kornacker P (1990) Linear barriers to arthropod movements in the landscape. Biol Conserv 54:209–222
Milton SJ, Dean WRJ, Sielecki LE, van der Ree R (2015) The function and management of roadside vegetation. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, pp 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch46
Müller S, Berthoud G (1995) Fauna/Traffic safety: Manual for engineers. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Département de génie civil. Laboratoire des voies de circulation (LAVOC).
Neumann W, Ericsson G, Dettki H, Bunnefeld N, Keuler NS, Helmers DP, Radeloff VC (2012) Difference in spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife road-crossings and wildlife-vehicle collisions. Biol Conserv 145:70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.011
Nicholsson E, Ovaskainen H (2009) Conservation prioritization using metapopulation models. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham H (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford
NVR (2018) Viltolycksstatistik (in Swedish). Nationella Viltolycksrådet – Swedish National Council for Wildlife Vehicle Accidents. www.viltolycka.se. Accessed 2018-07-10
OECD/ITF (2017) ITF transport outlook 2017. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789282108000-en
Olsson M, Cox JJ, Larkin JL, Widén P, Olovsson A (2010) Space and habitat use of moose in southwestern Sweden. Eur J Wildl Res 57:241–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-010-0418-5
Ooms JW (2010) Wildlife accidents – preventive measures and their application (In Dutch: Wildongevallen – Preventieve maatregelen en hun toepassingsgebied). NOVI Verkeersacademie, Utrecht. http://www.verkeersacademie.com
Planillo A, Mata C, Manica A, Malo JE (2018) Carnivore abundance near motorways related to prey and roadkills. J Wildl Manag 82:319–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21384
Putman RJ, Langbein J, Staines BW (2004) Deer and road traffic accidents: a review of mitigation measures: costs and cost-effectiveness. Report for the Deer Commission for Scotland, Contract RP23A. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/dcs/mitigation%20measures.pdf
Rea RV, Johnson CJ, Emmons S (2014) Characterizing moose–vehicle collision hotspots in northern British Columbia. J Fish Wildl Manag 5:46–58. https://doi.org/10.3996/062013-jfwm-042
Reck H, Kaule G (1993) Strassen und Lebensräume: Ermittlung und Beurteilung strassenbedingter Auswirkungen auf Pflanzen, Tiere und ihre Lebensräume. Forschung, Straßenbau und Straßenverkehrstechnik. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Abteilung Strassenbau, Bonn-Bad Godesberg, Germany
Rhodes JR, Lunney D, Callaghan J, McAlpine CA (2014) A few large roads or many small ones? How to accommodate growth in vehicle numbers to minimise impacts on wildlife. PLoS One 9:e91093. https://doi.org/10.1371/journalpone.0091093
Richardson JH, Shore RF, Treweek JR, Larkin SC (1997) Are major roads a barrier to small mammals? J Zool 243:840–846
Riitters KH, Wickham JD (2003) How far to the nearst road? Front Ecol Environ 1:125–129. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0125:HFTTNR]2.0.CO;2
Rijkswaterstaat (2004) MJPO – Meerjarenprogramma Ontsnippering. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, DenHaag. www.mjpo.nl
Roberts K, Sjölund A (2015) Incorporating biodiversity issues into road design: the road agency perspective. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 27–31
Rosell Pagès C, Helldin JO, Reck H, Navas F, Cama A, O’Brien E (2016) Road maintenance guidelines to improve wildlife conservation and traffic safety. SAFEROAD technical report 5. Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR), Brussels. https://www.saferoad-cedr.org/upload_mm/9/6/4/80f84c02-1d65-44c0-bed9-60c67e090a7e_CEDR%20Call%202013_SAFEROAD_Technical%20Report%205.pdf
Rost GR, Bailey JA (1979) Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. J Wildl Manag 43:634–641
Rytwinski T, Fahrig L (2012) Do species life history traits explain population responses to roads? A meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 147:87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.023
Rytwinski T, Fahrig L (2015) The impacts of roads and traffic on terrestrial animal populations. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, pp 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch28
Sáenz-de-Santa-María A, Tellería JL (2015) Wildlife-vehicle collisions in Spain. Eur J Wildl Res 61:399–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0907-7
Seiler A (2003) Effects of infrastructure on nature. In: Trocmé M et al (eds) COST 341 – habitat fragmentation due to transportation infrastructure: the European review. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 31–50
Seiler A (2004) Trends and spatial patterns in ungulate-vehicle collisions in Sweden. Wildl Biol 10:301–313. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.2004.036
Seiler A, Eriksson IM (1997) New approaches for ecological consideration in Swedish road planning. In: Canters K, Piepers A, Hendriks-Heersma A (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on “Habitat fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering” Maastricht & DenHague 1995. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Road and Hydraulic Engineering division, Delft, pp 253–264
Seiler A, Folkeson L (2006) Habitat fragmentation due to transportation infrastructure: COST 341 national state-of-the-art report Sweden. VTI report 530 A, Linköping
Seiler A, Jägerbrand AK (2016) Mörkertal i viltolycksstatistik – tolkning av viltolycksenkät och databasanalyser (Hidden statistics in wildlife-vehicle accident statistics – interpretation of drivers surveys and database comparisons). Triekol. Trafikverket Publikation 2016:055, Borlänge
Seiler A, Olsson M (2009) Are non-wildlife passages effective passages for wildlife? Paper presented at the ICOET 2009, international conference on ecology & transportation, Duluth, Minnesota, Sept 13–17, 2009. Available at: http://www.icoet.net/ICOET_2009/downloads/proceedings/ICOET2009-Proceedings-Complete.pdf
Seiler A, Olsson M (2017) Wildlife deterrent methods for railways – an experimental study. In: Borda-de-Água L, Barrientos R, Beja P, Pereira HM (eds) Railway ecology. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7_17
Seiler A, Sjölund A (2005) Target orientation for ecologically sound road management in Sweden. Gaia 14:178–181. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.14.2.24
Seiler A, Helldin JO, Eckersten T (2003) Road mortality in Swedish Badgers (Meles meles). Effect on population. The toll of the automobile: Wildlife and roads in Sweden. Ph.D. thesis at the Department for Conservation Biology, SLU, Uppsala
Seiler A, Söderström P, Olsson M, Sjölund A (2014) Costs and effects of deer-train collisions in Sweden. Paper presented at the IENE 2014 international conference on ecology and transportation, Malmö. Available at: http://iene2014.iene.info
Seiler A, Olsson M, Rosell C, Van Der Grift EA (2016) Cost-benefit analyses for wildlife and traffic safety. SAFEROAD technical report 4. Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR), Brussels. https://www.saferoad-cedr.org/upload_mm/4/d/1/2346434d-206d-463e-a2ea-3136722a2e1f_CEDR%20Call%202013_SAFEROAD_Technical%20Report%204.pdf
Selva N et al (2011) Roadless and low-traffic areas as conservation targets in Europe. J Environ Manag 48:865–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9751-z
Selva N, Switaliski A, Kreft S, Ibisch P (2015) Why keep areas road-free? The importance of roadless areas. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 16–26
Shepard DB, Kuhns AR, Dreslik MJ, Phillips CA (2008) Roads as barriers to animal movement in fragmented landscapes. Anim Conserv 11:288–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00183.x
Shilling FM, Waetjen DP (2015) Wildlife-vehicle collision hotspots at US highway extents: scale and data source effects. Nat Conserv 11:41–60. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.11.4438
Smith DJ, van der Ree R, Rosell C (2015) Wildlife crossing structures: an effective strategy to restore or maintain connectivity across roads. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 172–183
Soanes K, Lobo MC, Vesk PA, McCarthy MA, Moore JL, van der Ree R (2013) Movement re-established but not restored: inferring the effectiveness of road-crossing mitigation for a gliding mammal by monitoring use. Biol Conserv 159:434–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.016
Sperling D, Gordon D (2009) Two billion cars: driving toward sustainability. Oxford University Press, New York
Spooner PG (2015) Minor rural road networks: values, challenges, and opportunities for biodiversity conservation. Nat Conserv 11:129–142. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.11.4434
Stewart C, Luebkeman C, Morell M, Goulding L (2014) Future of rail 2050. ARUP.com, London. https://www.arup.com/publications/research/section/future-of-rail-2050
Strandroth J (2015) Analysis of road safety trends 2014. Management by objectives for road safety work towards the 2020 interim targets, vol 2015:103. Swedish Transport Administration 2015:103, Borlänge
Swihart RK, Slade NA (1984) Road crossing in Sigmodon hispidus and Microtus ochrogaster. J Mammal 65:357–360. https://doi.org/10.2307/1381184
Taylor SK, Buergelt CD, Roelke-Parker ME, Homer BL, Rotstein DS (2002) Causes of mortality of free-ranging Florida panthers. J Wildl Dis 38:107–114. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-38.1.107
The Economist (2017) What is China’s belt and road initiative? The Economist: 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2017.1302743
Torres A, Jaeger JA, Alonso JC (2016) Assessing large-scale wildlife responses to human infrastructure development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:8472–8477. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1522488113
Trafikverket (2012) Säker trafik – Nollvisionen på väg. Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket), Borlänge
Trafikverket (2015) Guideline landscape (In Swedish: Riktlinje landskap) Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) TDOK 2015-0323, Borlänge
Trocmé M (2005) The Swiss defragmentation program–reconnecting wildlife corridors between the Alps and Jura: an overview. UC Davis: Road Ecology Center. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8w66w88s
Trocmé M et al (2003) COST 341 – habitat fragmentation due to transportation infrastructure: the European review. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
UN (2016) Mobilizing sustainable transport – analysis and policy recommendations from the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on Sustainable Transport, United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2375&menu=35
Upton L (2016) 9 major factors shaping the future of the rail industry. https://www.smartrailworld.com/9-major-factors-shaping-the-future-of-the-rail-industry
van der Grift EA, Seiler A, Helldin JO (2016) Guidelines for outcome-based specifications in road mitigation. SAFEROAD technical report 2. Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR), Brussels. https://www.saferoad-cedr.org/upload_mm/c/0/4/3e3d1f2a-b53c-40bf-9872-f68b6473f72e_SAFEROAD_Technical%20Report%202.pdf
van der Grift EA, Seiler A, Rosell C, Simeonova V (2017) Safe roads for wildlife and people. SAFEROAD final report. CEDR, Brussels. https://www.saferoad-cedr.org/upload_mm/4/6/b/80eb4659-f6e6-4327-8358-f692b98f3419_CEDR_finalreport.pdf
van der Ree R (2006) Road upgrade in Victoria a filter to the movement of the endangered Squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis): results of a pilot study. Ecol Manage Restor 7:226–228
van der Ree R, Cesarini S, Sunnucks P, Moorre JL, Taylor A (2010) Large gaps in canopy reduce road crossing by a gliding mammal. Ecol Soc 15:35
van der Ree R, Gagnon JW, Smith D (2015a) Fencing: a valuable tool for reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions and funnelling fauna to crossing structures. In: van der Ree R, Smith D, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, pp 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch20
van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (2015b) Handbook of road ecology. Wiley, Chichester. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170
van der Zande AN, Ter Keurs WJ, van der Weijden WJ (1980) The impact of roads on the densities of four bird species in an open field habitat – evidence of a long-distance effect. Biol Conserv 18:299–321
van Langevelde F, Jaarsma CF (2009) Modeling the effect of traffic calming on local animal population persistence. Ecol Soc 14(2):39. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art39/
van Langevelde F, van Dooremalen C, Jaarsma CF (2009) Traffic mortality and the role of minor roads. J Environ Manage 90:660–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.09.003
Villemey A et al (2018) Can linear transportation infrastructure verges constitute a habitat and/or a corridor for insects in temperate landscapes? A systematic review. Environ Evid 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0117-3
Walton Z, Samelius G, Odden M, Willebrand T (2017) Variation in home range size of red foxes Vulpes vulpes along a gradient of productivity and human landscape alteration. PLoS One 12:e0175291. https://doi.org/10.1371/journalpone.0175291
Woess M, Grillmayer R, Voelk FH (2002) Green bridges and wildlife corridors in Austria. Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft 48(Suppl 1):25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02192389
Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Beier P, Vickers TW, Boyce WM (2015) Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study. Landsc Ecol 31:1319–1335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0301-6
Zimmermann Teixeira F, Kindel A, Hartz SM, Mitchell S, Fahrig L, Cadotte M (2017) When road-kill hotspots do not indicate the best sites for road-kill mitigation. J Appl Ecol 54:1544–1551. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12870
Acknowledgments
We are most grateful to Francesco Maria Angelici and Lorenzo Rossi for giving us the opportunity to publish this work in their book on problematic wildlife. This chapter has been financially supported by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Marie Claire Cronstedts foundation. Thanks to Filippo Favilli and Anke Benten providing comments to an early draft of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seiler, A., Bhardwaj, M. (2020). Wildlife and Traffic: An Inevitable but Not Unsolvable Problem?. In: Angelici, F., Rossi, L. (eds) Problematic Wildlife II. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42335-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42335-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42334-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42335-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)