Use road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

30%
Harms

2%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

The risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions was found to be six times higher at night and dawn than during the day (Lavsund & Sandegren 1991). Installing lighting along roads may increase visibility of animals to motorists and may, therefore, reduce the number of collisions. However, in areas where species are sensitive to human disturbance, they may avoid areas of roads with artificial lighting and, instead, cross elsewhere.

Lavsund S. & Sandegren F. (1991) Moose-vehicle relations in Sweden: a review. Alces, 27, 118–126.

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

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
Referenced paper
Reed D.F. & Woodard T.N. (1981) Effectiveness of highway lighting in reducing deer-vehicle accidents. Journal of Wildlife Management, 45, 721-726.
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
Referenced paper
McDonald M.G. (1991) Moose movement and mortality associated with the Glenn Highway expansion. Alces, 27, 208-219.

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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Install barrier fencing along roads Action Link	Beneficial	12	Synopsis Link
Install wildlife crosswalks Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Use wildlife decoy to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link