Use road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    2%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals. Both studies were in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Survival (2 studies): One of two studies (one controlled and one before-and-after), in the USA, found that road lighting reduced vehicle collisions with moose. The other study found that road lighting did not reduce vehicle collisions with mule deer.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A controlled study in 1974–1979 along a highway in Colorado, USA (Reed & Woodard 1981) found that highway lighting did not reduce vehicle collisions with mule deer Odocoileus hemionus. There was no significant difference between deer-vehicle collision rates with lights on (39 collisions from 2,611 crossings) or off (45 collisions from 2,480 crossings). Lighting did not alter the location of crossings, with accidents not occurring closer to the lights when they were off. Lighting did not alter vehicle speeds (lights on: 79 km/h; lights off: 80 km/h). Thirteen 37,000-lumen, 700-W, clear, mercury-vapour lamps (12 m high) were installed along 1.2 km of a four-lane highway (speed limit 88.5 km/h). Nine were spaced at 59–69-m intervals along 0.5 km of highway (full lighting) and two at each end were spaced at 119 and 302 m (transition lighting). Lights were alternately turned on and off for one-week periods in January–April of 1974–1979. Deer-vehicle collisions were recorded each morning and evening. Deer crossings were recorded during nightly spotlight surveys and using snow track counts. Deer behaviour was observed for two hours/night. Vehicle speeds were recorded during 35 nights in 1974.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 1977–1990 along a highway in Alaska, USA (McDonald 1991) found that road lighting reduced vehicle collisions with moose Alces alces. There were 65% fewer moose-vehicle collisions when lighting was installed compared to before its installation (actual numbers not stated). There were 95% fewer moose-vehicle collisions along the section with lighting, fencing with one-way gates and an underpass after they were installed (0.7/year) than before (17/year). Overall mortality along the entire stretch of road was lower after installation of lighting, barrier fencing and an underpass, with fewer collisions (12/year) than previously (38/year). In October 1987, road lighting was installed along 11.5 km of the highway. Fencing and 30 one-way gates were installed along 5.5 km of this section and an underpass was created. Moose-vehicle collisions were monitored before (1977–1987) and after (1987–1990) installation.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust