Identification of Urban and Wildlife Terrestrial Corridor Intersections for Planning of Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Mitigation Measures

Abstract

Roadkill and other impacts of roads on wildlife create pressures on society and the environment, requiring the implementation of mitigation measures in response. Due to various natural and anthropogenic causes, the locations of wildlife–vehicle collisions are not stable in time and space. The identification of urban and wildlife corridor intersections can help anchor collision locations along high-risk road sections. Urban and wildlife corridors and their intersections were identified in a case study of Lithuania using a landscape connectivity identification method based on circuit theory. A strong relationship was found between the numbers of urban–wildlife corridor intersections and the numbers of wildlife–vehicle collisions. Short road sections were characterised by the number of urban–wildlife corridor intersections, mammal–vehicle collisions, and the presence of fencing. Multi-criteria analyses identified the road sections where wildlife fencing is, simultaneously, the longest, and the number of mammal–vehicle collisions and the number of urban–wildlife corridor intersections are highest. The results show that identifying wildlife and urban corridor intersections can reinforce locations for permanent roadkill mitigation measures. The identification of crossing structure type and location within shortlisted road sections and evaluation of their efficiencies remain the challenges for field research.

Trends and Characteristics of Human Casualties in Wildlife–Vehicle Accidents in Lithuania, 2002–2022

“…These requirements aim not only to isolate animals from the road but also to guarantee their access to the other side of the road [16,23]. The location of the fences is typically chosen based on the number of WVAs and landscape features [14,27,70]. To the best of our knowledge, the installation of wildlife fences has never been planned according to the spatial pattern of human casualties.…”

“…Most of the fences (743.8 km out of 803.5 km, or 680 out of 1088 segments) are constructed on the main roads [28]. Other WVA mitigation effects, such as underground wildlife passages, one-way gates, and wildlife guards, are used sparingly [27].…”

“…In the earlier decades, WVA investigations focused on the main roads [21][22][23], and recently, problems have arisen even in the urban areas [24,25] and require attention. As WVAs occur also on the low traffic intensity roads [26,27], wildlife fencing is not a universal solution [28].…”