Contradiction and Complacency Shape Attitudes towards the Toll of Roads on Wildlife.

Daniel Ramp,Vanessa K Wilson,David B Croft

doi:10.3390/ani6060040

Daniel Ramp, Vanessa K Wilson + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6060040

Copy DOI

Abstract

Simple SummaryMitigating the toll of roads on wildlife can become difficult when awareness and exposure does not result in willingness to change driving behaviour. Using a self-reporting questionnaire, we found that while most drivers view wildlife vehicle collisions as a serious issue, increasing exposure to collisions decreased this attitude and it did not translate into willingness to adopt additional mitigation strategies. In addition, despite most respondents stating they routinely drive slower when collision risk is high (at dusk and dawn), our assessment of driving trends via traffic speeds suggested this sentiment was not generally adhered to. We suggest that competing priorities and complacency when risk to people is low may adversely affect willingness to prevent collisions.Most people in the world now live in cities. Urbanisation simultaneously isolates people from nature and contributes to biodiversity decline. As cities expand, suburban development and the road infrastructure to support them widens their impact on wildlife. Even so, urban communities, especially those on the peri-urban fringe, endeavour to support biodiversity through wildlife friendly gardens, green spaces and corridors, and conservation estates. On one hand, many who live on city fringes do so because they enjoy proximity to nature, however, the ever increasing intrusion of roads leads to conflict with wildlife. Trauma (usually fatal) to wildlife and (usually emotional and financial) to people ensues. Exposure to this trauma, therefore, should inform attitudes towards wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC) and be linked to willingness to reduce risk of further WVC. While there is good anecdotal evidence for this response, competing priorities and better understanding of the likelihood of human injury or fatalities, as opposed to wildlife fatalities, may confound this trend. In this paper we sought to explore this relationship with a quantitative study of driver behaviour and attitudes to WVC from a cohort of residents and visitors who drive through a peri-urban reserve (Royal National Park) on the outskirts of Sydney, Australia. We distributed a self-reporting questionnaire and received responses from 105 local residents and 51 visitors to small townships accessed by roads through the national park. We sought the respondents’ exposure to WVC, their evasive actions in an impending WVC, their attitudes to wildlife fatalities, their strategies to reduce the risk of WVC, and their willingness to adopt new ameliorative measures. The results were partitioned by driver demographics and residency. Residents were generally well informed about mitigation strategies but exposure led to a decrease in viewing WVC as very serious. In addition, despite most respondents stating they routinely drive slower when collision risk is high (at dusk and dawn), our assessment of driving trends via traffic speeds suggested this sentiment was not generally adhered to. Thus we unveil some of the complexities in tackling driver’s willingness to act on reducing risk of WVC, particularly when risk of human trauma is low.

Highlights

Urbanisation and the dissection of landscapes by roads increases apace as the human population grows and rural populations shift to cities
As cities expand, suburban development and the road infrastructure to support them increases the toll on wildlife
Most respondents to the questionnaire considered collisions with wildlife on roads to be a serious towards wildlife vehicle collisions (WVC), a fact driven by their increased exposure to WVC

Summary

Introduction

Urbanisation and the dissection of landscapes by roads increases apace as the human population grows and rural populations shift to cities. Some wildlife adapt and can flourish in urban landscapes [1], biodiversity loss is often stark. City dwellers can experience a disconnect from nature [2], prompting some to either seek out wild experiences by visiting national parks and reserves or by choosing to live in areas that provide a measure of urbanity and connectedness to fringe (peri-urban) habitat. Activities to encourage wildlife into urban and peri-urban landscapes are popular, including the establishment of wildlife friendly gardens, green spaces and biodiversity corridors. As cities expand, suburban development and the road infrastructure to support them increases the toll on wildlife. The ever growing intrusion of roads leads to conflict with wildlife and creates substantial trauma to animals (usually fatal) and people (usually emotional and financial, but sometimes fatal). Interactions between people and other animals are often conflicted by a variety of competing priorities [3], yet animal needs are almost always subjugated by our own, whether consciously or not [4]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion