China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Living in Harmony with Wildlife
Published in Steffen Lehmann, Robert Crocker, Designing for Zero Waste, 2013
Carla Litchfield, Kurt Lushington, Sue Bigwood, Wendy Foster
In a world populated by humans and their forms of transport, providing safe areas for wildlife to cross roads and railway tracks, or ‘wildlife crossings’, is vital (Glista et al, 2009). Vehicle-collision fatalities may be high enough to have an impact on the survival of some populations (Roger et al, 2011), or an entire population may even become extinct (Jones, 2000). To prevent road fatalities, exclusion fences are built along highways, or tunnels, culverts or bridges are built as under- or over-passes at major roads (Taylor and Goldingay, 2010). Whether animals choose to use these structures depends on a variety of factors, such as traffic noise levels, location of crossings, dimensions of structure, type of substrate, lighting, airflow and preferences for height or open versus enclosed spaces (Glista et al, 2009). Exclusion fences may reduce road fatalities, but may also create a barrier to movement of some animals, such as moose in Sweden, which may no longer attempt to travel to areas beyond the fence, further fragmenting the population (Olsson and Widen, 2008). Use of physical structures alone will not be effective in the long term, owing to cost, ongoing maintenance and increased need with increasing roads, and so other measures, including changes in human behaviour, such as higher awareness in drivers about wildlife in the area and reducing speed, will be required (Glista et al, 2009).
Of other movements: nonhuman mobility in the Anthropocene
Published in Mobilities, 2019
For example, the US Department of Transportation’s Report to Congress on animal vehicle conflict identified 34 different techniques that could be employed, but found that planning and design methods are the most effective, especially those that influence behaviour for safe crossing. Wildlife crossings can be over- or – underpasses, culverts, or rope bridges that allow wildlife to travel across roads without worry of contact with automobiles. A successful mitigation strategy requires a detailed, location-specific analysis of the problem and often involves a combination of different types of mitigation measures. Nonetheless, wildlife fences, with or without wildlife crossing structures, animal detection systems, and long tunnels or bridges, reduce or may reduce WVCs substantially (≥80 percent) (Federal Highway Administration 2008, 18).
Characteristics of animal-related motor vehicle crashes in select National Park Service units—United States, 1990–2013
Published in Traffic Injury Prevention, 2019
Cara C. Cherry, Stephanie Dietz, Erin Sauber-Schatz, Samuel Russell, Jennifer Proctor, Danielle Buttke
Although temporary interventions can be implemented, installation of wildlife underpasses or overpasses is a more permanent and effective mitigation strategy for reducing AVCs (Bisonette et al. 2008; Hedlund et al. 2004). These types of wildlife crossings allow animals to cross a road any time of the year without encountering motor vehicles (Hedlund et al. 2004). Underpasses and overpasses are most effective when combined with fencing or other barriers to direct animals to use the crossings (Bisonette et al. 2008; Hedlund et al. 2004). Multiple types of crossing structures could be constructed at crossing points to allow for passage by various species of animals (Beier et al. 2008). Structures and fencing must be maintained in good repair to ensure that animals have no other way to cross roadways (Hedlund et al. 2004). Permanent structures would alleviate the need to increase seasonal mitigation strategies.