Governance Dimensions of Wildlife Crossings
Study Objectives
-
Identify the perceived opportunities and barriers among stakeholders to implementation of new wildlife crossing infrastructure across roadways
-
Assess the perceived benefits and pitfalls among governance actors of effective non-structural strategies for wildlife crossings and reduction of wildlife-vehicle collisions
Researchers
Julia Lankisch (Student, M.S. in Conservation Leadership, Colorado State University)
Ed Gallo-Cajiao (Assistant Professor, Colorado State University)
Conservation Problem
As humans have modified a massive portion of Earth’s habitat, the areas wildlife can occupy have steadily shrunk. Development has blocked wildlife migration corridors and caused fragmentation of essential habitat and resources (Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 2023). Among the most significant human barriers to the migration and dispersal of large mammals are roadways (Huijser et. al., 2009). Roadways also often block the routes between breeding and feeding grounds for smaller and slower fauna such as reptiles and rodents, and these populations are damaged by the resulting high volume of road kills (Bíl et. al., 2019). When approaching large highways such as I-70 or SH-9 in Summit County, CO, they must either turn around or attempt to cross the road (Henke, Cawood-Hellmund, and Sprunk, 2001) – and successful road crossings are rare (Soanes et. al., 2024). The subsequent loss of gene flow for large mammals from habitat fragmentation and disrupted migration leads to a decrease in genetic diversity within populations, and they become less resilient (Hilty et. al., 2020). Notwithstanding their effects on animals, wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVCs) yearly cause hundreds of human deaths in the US, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars (Bíl et. al., 2019).
Wildlife Connectivity Solutions
The most effective way to conserve migration corridors and prevent WVCs is to build infrastructure wildlife can use to cross roadways safely (Hilty et. al., 2020). These structures can take the form of overpasses, underpasses, culverts, adapted walkways, viaducts, and tunnels (Bíl et. al., 2019). Such methods have been shown to increase wildlife and human safety where they are implemented, reducing WVCs by an average of 85% (CPW, 2023). When planned and executed well, wildlife crossings can also reduce the barrier effect of roads to allow for gene flow and migration (van der Grift et. al., 2013). Wildlife connectivity projects require coordination and cooperation between dozens of stakeholders, a process which can be both lengthy and expensive (Hack, 2018). Between planning, design, implementation, and monitoring, such efforts usually require decades of work, collaboration among dozens of distinct stakeholders, and millions of dollars (Jakes et. al., 2018). Often, more feasible and timelier “non-structural” solutions are implemented before and in conjunction with wildlife crossings to make them more effective and cost-efficient. These can include retrofitting fences and culverts, conserving adjacent land, implementing detection systems, and facilitating landscape-scale connectivity research and planning, among others (Huijser et. al., 2009).
Local Context
Summit County Safe Passages (SCSP) is the primary organization that collaboratively governs the design and implementation of wildlife crossing infrastructure in Summit County, Colorado. SCSP consists of a collaborative team of stakeholders working toward a common vision of balancing wildlife needs with the ever-growing human population in Summit County. To evaluate the barriers and opportunities to implementation of wildlife crossings, it is necessary to understand both the social context in which the Summit County Safe Passages collaborative is functioning and the internal collaborative governance dynamics. This study will build upon a 2018 ecological feasibility study commissioned by SCSP and the US Forest Service about wildlife crossing conflict areas and potential structures in Summit County. The Summit County Safe Passages Plan identifies wildlife movement areas across Summit County and, specifically, the need for wildlife to move across highways (Kintsch et. al., 2017). This research will add governance data to the primarily ecological approach used to recommend wildlife crossing infrastructure.
Methods
First, we will conduct one-on-one semi-structured interviews with representatives from important stakeholders in the safety of wildlife and motorists, with the goal of gaining a deep understanding of the interests of those with potential to drive or prevent implementation of wildlife crossings. The interviews will be in-person in Summit County and recorded for transcription. We may branch out from the original list of interviewees through participant referral if deemed necessary by the researchers. Next, we will conduct a focus group, used to quantify and visualize expert opinions about possible consequences of implementing non-structural solutions in the Summit County Safe Passages context. The focus group, made up of approximately 8 relevant governance actors identified during the interview process, will be held in the Breckenridge town hall conference room for 2 hours during a workday. Julia will guide the group through a set of questions designed to help them collectively evaluate the quality of possible non-structural wildlife connectivity solutions based on the interests of all present governance actors (Hemming et. al., 2017). This process will create an overall rating of each potential solution from a list of evaluative criteria the participants devise as a group.
Resources
Summit County Safe Passages Plan: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jPQ8eUYy8PsGuzB5eXkAJU3Dfili489s/view
Benefits of Wildlife Crossings: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-wildlife-crossings-protect-both-animals-and-people/
Colorado Highway 9 Overpasses Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKdZ13IYGO0
Contact
Julia Lankisch: julia.lankisch@colostate.edu
References
Bíl, M., Grilo, C., Kubeček, J., Sedoník, J., Andrášik, R., Cícha, V., Favilli, F., Stauder, J., Schwingshackl, F., Michael, K., Elia, M., Zotos, S., Sergides, L., Arvaj, T., Litskas, V., & Vogiatzakis, I. (2019). Wildlife-vehicle collisions: Road ecology, monitoring and mitigation, citizen science, pedagogical and socioeconomic aspects. https://hdl.handle.net/10863/14119
Hack, A. (2018). Getting from here to there: Mainstreaming wildlife crossing structures through transdisciplinary design approaches to collaborative planning. Retrieved on February 20, 2025, from https://rshare.library.torontomu.ca/articles/thesis/Getting_From_Here_To_There_-_Mainstreaming_Wildlife_Crossing_Structures_Through_Transdisciplinary_Design_Approaches_To_Collaborative_Planning/14657895/1/files/28139901.pdf
Hilty, J., Worboys, G. L., Keeley, A., Woodley, S., Lausche, B. J., Locke, H., Carr, M., Pulsford, I., Pittock, J., White, J. W., Theobald, D. M., Levine, J., Reuling, M., Watson, J. E. M., Ament, R., & Tabor, G. M. (2020). Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors (C. Groves, Ed.). IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PAG.30.en
Huijser, M., Duffield, J., Clevenger, A., Ament, R., & McGowen, P. (2009). Cost–benefit analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with large ungulates in the United States and Canada: A decision support tool. Ecology and Society, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03000-140215
Jakes, A. F., Jones, P. F., Paige, L. C., Seidler, R. G., & Huijser, M. P. (2018). A fence runs through it: A call for greater attention to the influence of fences on wildlife and ecosystems. Biological Conservation, 227, 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.026
Kintsch, J., Ruediger, B., Singer, P., and Nettles, A. (2017). Summit County safe passages: A county-wide connectivity plan for wildlife. Retrieved February 20, 2025, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jPQ8eUYy8PsGuzB5eXkAJU3Dfili489s/view
Soanes, K., Rytwinski, T., Fahrig, L., Huijser, M. P., Jaeger, J. A. G., Teixeira, F. Z., van der Ree, R., & van der Grift, E. A. (2024). Do wildlife crossing structures mitigate the barrier effect of roads on animal movement? A global assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology, 61(3), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14582
Taherdoost, H. (2022). How to conduct an effective interview: A guide to interview design in research study. Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4178687
van der Grift, E. A., van der Ree, R., Fahrig, L., Findlay, S., Houlahan, J., Jaeger, J. A. G., Klar, N., Madriñan, L. F., & Olson, L. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of road mitigation measures. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(2), 425–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0421-0
Wildlife collisions. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. (2023, December 21). https://cpw.state.co.us/wildlife-collisions
Wildlife migration and movement. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. (2023, December 14). https://cpw.state.co.us/wildlife-migration-and-movement
