IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0166941.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Effective Is Road Mitigation at Reducing Road-Kill? A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Trina Rytwinski
  • Kylie Soanes
  • Jochen A G Jaeger
  • Lenore Fahrig
  • C Scott Findlay
  • Jeff Houlahan
  • Rodney van der Ree
  • Edgar A van der Grift

Abstract

Road traffic kills hundreds of millions of animals every year, posing a critical threat to the populations of many species. To address this problem there are more than forty types of road mitigation measures available that aim to reduce wildlife mortality on roads (road-kill). For road planners, deciding on what mitigation method to use has been problematic because there is little good information about the relative effectiveness of these measures in reducing road-kill, and the costs of these measures vary greatly. We conducted a meta-analysis using data from 50 studies that quantified the relationship between road-kill and a mitigation measure designed to reduce road-kill. Overall, mitigation measures reduce road-kill by 40% compared to controls. Fences, with or without crossing structures, reduce road-kill by 54%. We found no detectable effect on road-kill of crossing structures without fencing. We found that comparatively expensive mitigation measures reduce large mammal road-kill much more than inexpensive measures. For example, the combination of fencing and crossing structures led to an 83% reduction in road-kill of large mammals, compared to a 57% reduction for animal detection systems, and only a 1% for wildlife reflectors. We suggest that inexpensive measures such as reflectors should not be used until and unless their effectiveness is tested using a high-quality experimental approach. Our meta-analysis also highlights the fact that there are insufficient data to answer many of the most pressing questions that road planners ask about the effectiveness of road mitigation measures, such as whether other less common mitigation measures (e.g., measures to reduce traffic volume and/or speed) reduce road mortality, or to what extent the attributes of crossing structures and fences influence their effectiveness. To improve evaluations of mitigation effectiveness, studies should incorporate data collection before the mitigation is applied, and we recommend a minimum study duration of four years for Before-After, and a minimum of either four years or four sites for Before-After-Control-Impact designs.

Suggested Citation

  • Trina Rytwinski & Kylie Soanes & Jochen A G Jaeger & Lenore Fahrig & C Scott Findlay & Jeff Houlahan & Rodney van der Ree & Edgar A van der Grift, 2016. "How Effective Is Road Mitigation at Reducing Road-Kill? A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0166941
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0166941
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0166941&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0166941?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrius Kučas & Linas Balčiauskas, 2021. "Impact of Road Fencing on Ungulate–Vehicle Collisions and Hotspot Patterns," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Andrius Kučas & Linas Balčiauskas, 2021. "Roadkill-Data-Based Identification and Ranking of Mammal Habitats," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-35, May.
    3. Christopher A Lepczyk & Jean E Fantle-Lepczyk & Kathleen Misajon & Darcy Hu & David C Duffy, 2019. "Long-term history of vehicle collisions on the endangered Nēnē (Branta sandvicensis)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, February.
    4. Irene Nandutu & Marcellin Atemkeng & Nokubonga Mgqatsa & Sakayo Toadoum Sari & Patrice Okouma & Rockefeller Rockefeller & Theophilus Ansah-Narh & Jean Louis Ebongue Kedieng Fendji & Franklin Tchakount, 2022. "Error Correction Based Deep Neural Networks for Modeling and Predicting South African Wildlife–Vehicle Collision Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(21), pages 1-31, October.
    5. Matthew Bell & Damon Fick & Rob Ament & Nina-Marie Lister, 2020. "The Use of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers in Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Andrius Kučas & Linas Balčiauskas & Carlo Lavalle, 2023. "Identification of Urban and Wildlife Terrestrial Corridor Intersections for Planning of Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Mitigation Measures," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Íñigo García-Martínez-de-Albéniz & Juan Antonio Ruiz-de-Villa & Jorge Rodriguez-Hernandez, 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown on Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions in NW of Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-14, April.
    8. Haotong Su & Yun Wang & Yangang Yang & Shuangcheng Tao & Yaping Kong, 2023. "An Analytical Framework of the Factors Affecting Wildlife–Vehicle Collisions and Barriers to Movement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-16, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0166941. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.