Does Wildlife Transportation Mitigation Make Cents: A Case Study of Highway 3 in the Crowsnest Pass in the Southern Canadian Rockies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Highway 3 transportation corridor, including land use and development adjacent to the highway, has been identified as a major challenge to maintaining wildlife connectivity in the southern Canadian Rockies. Highway 3 is a two-lane, east–west highway supporting 6,000 to 9,000 vehicles per day traveling over the Continental Divide at Crowsnest Pass. Wildlife – Vehicle Collisions (WVC’s) involving large mammals along Highway 3 predominantly involve deer; collisions also occur with less common species such as elk, moose, bighorn sheep, grizzly bear, wolf, lynx and cougar. A cost–benefit analysis was conducted using annual rates of WVCs for 31 mitigation emphasis sites identified along Highway 3 in British Columbia and Alberta. Mitigation emphasis sites (MES) were identified based on a synthesis of carnivore and ungulate use of the landscape surrounding Highway 3, the site’s local and regional conservation value, development status of land adjacent to the MES, and the highway mitigation potential. At each MES an analysis of wildlife vehicle collision mortality data was conducted. The number of collisions per kilometer per year involving deer, elk, moose and bighorn sheep were summarized at each mitigation emphasis site and the total cost of the ungulate– vehicle collisions (UVCs) was compiled. Using the UVC rates at each MES, the annual costs of the UVCs were then derived based on each ungulate species’ average cost per collision (i.e., human fatalities and injuries, vehicle damage): deer ($6,617), elk ($17,483), moose ($30,760) and bighorn sheep ($6,617). In British Columbia, total annual costs of UVCs at MES ranged from a low of $1,323 to $28,329 (includes 23 MES). In Alberta, total annual costs of UVCs varied from a low of $6,617 to a high of $31,405 (includes 14 MES)(all figures in 2007 Canadian dollars). A recent cost–benefit analysis for a variety of highway mitigation measures across North America found the average cost of building and maintaining a wildlife underpass with fencing and jumpouts (escape ramps for wildlife) is $18,123 km/yr. Although underpasses are often considered an “expensive” infrastructure investment for wildlife, nearly onethird of the monetary costs for the sites in British Columbia were estimated in excess of $18,123 km/yr and half of the MES in Alberta had estimated annual costs in excess of this threshold number. These costs indicate many of the MES along Highway 3 in the study area are excellent candidates for underpasses or other infrastructure investments. Further, if the underreporting of WVCs were accounted for, then investment in mitigation at even more sites would have been considered cost effective for using infrastructure investments. Focusing highway mitigation efforts in these areas could improve motorist safety, reduce wildlife mortalities, improve habitat linkage and animal movements across Highway 3 and be cost effective.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».