Study

Effectiveness of highway crosswalk structures at reducing deer-vehicle collisions

  • Published source details Lehnert M.E. & Bissonette J.A. (1997) Effectiveness of highway crosswalk structures at reducing deer-vehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25, 809-818

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Install wildlife crosswalks

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Install one-way gates or other structures to allow wildlife to leave roadways

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Install barrier fencing along roads

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Install wildlife crosswalks

    A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in 1991–1995 along two highways in Utah, USA (Lehnert & Bissonette 1997) found that designated crossing points with barrier fencing did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer Odocoileus hemionus. Deaths decreased on both fenced and unfenced sections but the rate of decline was not significantly higher on fenced road sections with crossings (after: 36–46 deer fatalities over 15 months; before: 111–148 over 36 months) than over the same period on unfenced sections (after: 34–63; before: 75–123). In September 1994, four and five crossing points were installed along a two- and a four-lane highway respectively. Fencing (2.3 m high) restricted access to roadside resources and directed deer to crossing points. At these points, deer could jump a 1-m-high fence into funnel shaped fencing (2.3 m high) with a narrow opening to the road. One-way gates allowed deer trapped along the road to escape. Three warning signs, 152 m apart before crossings, and painted lines across the road at crossings, indicated to drivers that it was a crossing point. Road deaths were monitored weekly along treatment and nearby control roads before and after crossing installation, from October 1991 to November 1995.

  2. Install one-way gates or other structures to allow wildlife to leave roadways

    A study in 1994–1995 along two highways through grassland and shrubland in Utah, USA (Lehnert & Bissonette 1997) found that one-way gates were used by some mule deer Odocoileus hemionus to escape a highway, but most did not cross through them. From 243 instances in which deer approached gates from the highway, 40 deer (16%) used gates to leave the highway. None of 128 deer that approached from the side away from the highway passed through gates. In September 1994, five and four crossing points were installed along a two- and a four-lane highway respectively. Fencing, 2.3 m high, directed deer to crossing points. Warning signs alerted approaching motorists to crossing points. Four one-way gates were installed at each crossing to allow deer trapped along the road to escape. One-way gate specifications were not detailed in the paper. Earthen track beds at 12 randomly selected one-way gates were checked at least once each week from September 1994 to November 1995 (except January–March 1995).

  3. Install barrier fencing along roads

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 1991–1995 along two highways in Utah, USA (Lehnert & Bissonette 1997) found that barrier fencing with designated crossing points and warning signs did not reduce road deaths of mule deer Odocoileus hemionus. Deaths fell on both fenced and unfenced sections but the rate of fall was not significantly higher on fenced road sections (after: 36–46; before: 111–148) than on unfenced sections (after: 34–63; before: 75–123). The number of deer on road verges fell by 34–55% following fence installation. In September 1994, four and five crossing points were installed along a two- and a four-lane highway respectively. Fencing, 2.3 m high, restricted access to roadsides and directed deer towards crossing points. At these points, deer could jump a 1-m-high fence into funnel shaped fencing (2.3 m high) with a narrow opening to the road. One-way gates allowed deer trapped along the road to escape. Three warning signs, spaced 152 m apart, and painted lines across the road at crossings, indicated to drivers that it was a crossing point. Road deaths (weekly) and behaviour were monitored along fenced and nearby unfenced roads before and after installation, from October 1991 to November 1995. Spotlight count surveys were undertaken twice/month.

Output references

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, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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