INNOVATIONS IN THE FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Integrated adaptive design for wildlife 493

movement under climate change

Nina-Marie Lister1*, Marta Brocki1, and Robert Ament2

Climate change is anticipated to alter both wildlife movement and distributions. Despite mounting evidence that
wildlife-crossing infrastructure offers a reliable, physical solution to the linked problems of wildlife road mortality
and habitat fragmentation, pervasive barriers – from economic to governance structures – prevent the widespread
introduction of an infrastructure network. To overcome these barriers, and to cope with the challenges posed by
climate change, we argue that proactive, anticipatory planning and evidence-based, integrated highway-impact
mitigation strategies are needed. Specifically, wildlife-crossing infrastructure should emphasize an integrated and
adaptive approach to constructing innovative, modular, and potentially moveable structures that can be trans-
ferred from one location to another as monitoring of habitats and wildlife needs indicate. Continued investment
in fixed, static structures, which are typically based on engineering standards designed for traffic loads rather than
wildlife movement, may prove ineffectual as habitats change in composition and location, potentially leading to
associated changes in the locations of wildlife–vehicle collisions.
Front Ecol Environ 2015; 13(9): 493–502, doi:10.1890/150080

M any studies have detailed the ecological impacts of

roads, including loss of habitat and landscape con-
nectivity (Trombulak and Frisell 2000), direct animal
1998; Forman 2003). In the short term, landscape frag-
mentation by roads is associated with increasing instances
of wildlife–vehicle collisions (WVCs), which put both
mortality (Benítez-López et al. 2010), demographic people and non-human animals at risk; landscape frag-
impacts to wildlife populations and their genetic conse- mentation can also result in genetic isolation, putting
quences (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009; Sawaya et al. 2013, some species of wildlife at risk over the longer term
2014), hydrological disruptions, erosion, sedimentation, (Trombulak and Frisell 2000; Van der Ree et al. 2011).
exotic invasions, and noise and light pollution More than half a century of continuous road building in
(Spellerberg 2002; Crooks and Sanjayan 2006; Beckmann North America has resulted in growing numbers of
et al. 2010). Roads fragment habitats and create barriers WVCs – including a 50% increase in just the past 15
that impede wildlife mobility (Forman and Alexander years – leading to rising levels of personal injury and
property damage (Huijser et al. 2007). One to two million
collisions between cars and large mammals are estimated
In a nutshell: to occur every year in the US, representing a serious
• Roads divide habitats into smaller fragments and prevent threat to both human safety and wildlife populations
wildlife from moving freely across landscapes to breed, feed, (Huijser et al. 2009). Transport Canada reports that
and find shelter between four and eight collisions with large animals take
• Wildlife crossings – road infrastructure that has proven effec-
tive in reducing the impacts of roads by reconnecting land- place every hour in Canada alone, and that there is an
scapes over and under roads – can facilitate the movement of increasing annual trend in reported WVCs with large
wildlife between areas ungulate species such as deer (Odocoileus spp) and moose
• The regions that wildlife species will inhabit are likely to shift as (Alces alces; Vanlaar et al. 2012). The Ontario Ministry of
climate changes, but the exact nature of these migrations is dif- Natural Resources records indicate that one in five colli-
ficult to predict, thus necessitating a precautionary and anticipa-
tory approach to increasing connectivity between habitats sions includes a wild animal (MNR 2008). The risk of
• Novel solutions being developed involve the design and con- collisions involving wildlife is greater during migration
struction of adaptive and flexible infrastructure, as well as the seasons and in certain areas – motorists are at an
removal of systemic barriers to implementation of these new increased risk in the suburban regions of the US and
systems southern Canada, for instance (State Farm Insurance
• An integrated approach will allow wildlife managers,
researchers, and decision makers to anticipate and respond to Canada 2011; Vanlaar et al. 2012). The proportion of
wildlife movements in ways that are safe-to-fail and specific to accidents that are caused by WVCs is also increasing over
local contexts time, costing North Americans more than US$8 billion
annually (Huijser et al. 2009).
WVCs are also a source of concern for wildlife; road
1
Urban and Regional Planning, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada mortality is a major threat to the survival of 21 species
*
([email protected]); 2Road Ecology Program, Western Transpor- listed under the US Endangered Species Act (Huijser et
tation Institute, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT al. 2007). Road building also has effects beyond direct

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 15409309, 2015, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/150080 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [24/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Adaptive design for wildlife crossings N-M Lister et al.

494 mortality – for example, habitat loss through the linked 2011; CIA 2013). Global passenger and freight travel
processes of habitat fragmentation and the consequent on roads and rails is predicted to double in the next four
habitat restriction as wildlife species are limited to decades, creating an additional 25 million km of new
increasingly isolated patches (Trombulak and Frisell roads worldwide (Dulac 2013). Much of this new infra-
2000; Forman 2003). As wildlife populations become structure will occur in the world’s fastest urbanizing
more isolated and less able to move freely to breed and regions – as a response to growth, rather than as a pro-
feed, they become susceptible to loss of genetic viability active plan – with little concern for the environmental
(Forman and Alexander 1998). Habitat fragmentation consequences (eg UN 2014; WHO 2014).
and associated threats to biodiversity are growing in As more roads and motorized vehicles encroach farther
urbanizing landscapes, which in Canada are southern, into the world’s natural landscapes and intact ecosystems,
temperate landscapes that are home to most of the coun- efforts must be made to mitigate the continued ecological
try’s biodiversity, including many threatened and endan- degradation and loss of biodiversity (Laurance et al.
gered species (MNR 2008). 2014). Counteracting the negative impacts of global
The rapid and continuous proliferation of roads and transportation infrastructure will require a comprehen-
vehicle traffic worldwide necessitates a better under- sive and interdisciplinary approach to research, conserva-
standing of their social and ecological impacts. There tion, planning, and education – and specifically, an inte-
are over 102 million km of paved and unpaved roads in grated approach to the design of mitigation strategies.
the world (Table 1), a number that rises each year. New and improved methods are required that can help to
North America contains more than 7.5 million km of reconcile social and ecological values with the need
roads, and has one of the highest rates of automobile for safe and efficient movement of goods and services.
ownership of any country: more than a quarter of a This has become one of the most pressing contemporary
billion vehicles use these roads already (Davis et al. issues affecting human communities and biodiversity

Table 1. Total length of the global road network, top-ranking countries in terms of road length, and other areas of
interest around the world (CIA 2013)
Country and global rank Total road length Road density Roads per capita Comments
(km)a (km km–2) (km person–1)
(1) US 6 506 204 0.7 0.021 Most in North America
(4 374 784 paved)
(2) China 4 106 387 0.4 0.003 Most in Asia
(3 453 890 paved)
(3) India 3 320 410b 1.0 0.003
(4) Brazil 1 580 964 0.2 0.008 Most in South America
(212 798 paved)
(5) Japan 1 210 251 3.2 0.010
(973 234 paved)
(6) Canada 1 042 300 0.1 0.030
(415 600 paved)

Other areas of interest

Australia 823 217 0.1 0.037
(356 343 paved)
Germany 644 480 1.8 0.008 Most in Europe;
(644 480 paved) includes local roads
South Africa 362 099 0.3 0.007 Most in Africa
(73 506 paved)
Greenland 0 0.0 0.000 Roads are in towns,
not between towns
North America 7 914 599 nac na
(4 922 673 paved)
EU total 5 814 080b na na
d
World total 102 260 304 0.8 0.15e
Notes: ayear reported varied by country, from 1999 to 2011; bratio of paved to unpaved roads unknown; cna = not available; dtotal world land area was based on information
from The World Bank (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2); etotal world population in 2012 based on information from The World Bank (http://wdi.world-
bank.org/table/2.1).

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

 15409309, 2015, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/150080 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [24/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
N-M Lister et al. Adaptive design for wildlife crossings

across the globe, a challenge that will be 495

compounded by the future effects of cli-
mate change.

n Wildlife-crossing infrastructure
Maintaining ecological connectivity has
become a key focus of efforts to combat
these collective threats (Soulé et al. 2006;
Crooks and Sanjayan 2006; Heller and
Zavaleta 2009; Mawdsley et al. 2009). As
more landscapes are fragmented by roads,
it is increasingly difficult to maintain, let
alone to restore, habitat connectivity

N-M Lister
(Clevenger and Wierzchowski 2006).
Most of the world’s current surface trans-
portation systems were constructed with- Figure 1. A wildlife overpass in Banff, Canada.
out considering ecological effects or con-
nectivity – and more are on the way. A new systematic crossing structures in Banff National Park (Figure 1) in
and integrated approach is required: one that constructs Alberta, Canada, and at several European sites, has shown
new, and retrofits old, transportation infrastructure with that when designed appropriately for target species and
a specific focus on maintaining permeability for all types used in tandem with fencing, wildlife-crossing infrastruc-
of species, large and small. Such an approach also ture can reduce WVCs by more than 90% (Clevenger and
requires adaptability and modularity through innovations Waltho 2000; Clevenger et al. 2009). Crossing structures
in infrastructure design and materials (Brocki et al. 2014), also facilitate effective wildlife mobility over time, as pop-
and concomitant studies to ensure ongoing monitoring ulations become acclimated to the structures and use them
and the implementation of evidence-based best practices to access food, shelter, and breeding partners or grounds
(Rytwinski et al. 2015). (Clevenger et al. 2009; Clevenger and Barrueto 2014).
One recognized solution to improve safety for both Monitoring studies of existing structures have provided
humans and wildlife, alleviate habitat fragmentation, and evidence that these crossing structures also have longer-
restore wildlife movement is the placement of wildlife- term benefits in the form of increased gene flow between
crossing infrastructure at key points along transportation some populations (Sawaya et al. 2013, 2014).
corridors (Clevenger 2005; Crooks and Sanjayan 2006;
Clevenger and Barrueto 2014). Wildlife-crossing struc- n Barriers to implementation
tures have been successfully introduced throughout
Europe and in various locations in Asia, Australia, and Despite extensive scientific evidence supporting the effi-
North America (Forman 2003; Beckmann et al. 2010; cacy of wildlife-crossing infrastructure (Beckmann et al.
Clevenger and Barrueto 2014). Wildlife-crossing struc- 2010), implementation in North America has been both
tures include both underpasses (culverts, ecopassages, slow and sparse. In Canada, where few municipal, provin-
tunnels) and overpasses (bridges), which have been con- cial, or federal agencies have planning and implementa-
structed in a variety of sizes and designs and are highly tion experience, only in the provinces of British
effective (Bekker and Vastenhout 1995; Clevenger and Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario are there a small number
Huijser 2009; reviewed in Glista et al. 2009). Although of prototype structures. The perceived and real costs of
wildlife underpasses are less costly to build and more adding these structures have contributed to their limited
commonly used by a diversity of species, wildlife overpass application and study (Sawaya et al. 2013). Yet, WVCs
structures are preferred by certain wide-roaming and are rarely considered in safety and cost–benefit analyses
charismatic species-at-risk, such as grizzly bears (Ursus undertaken by transportation agencies (Table 2).
arctos; Clevenger and Waltho 2005). Overpass structures Although the capital investment required would be sub-
are highly visible to passing motorists and, as such, may stantial, the benefits extend over the lifetime of the cross-
offer a public education function in communicating con- ing structure. When considered over the typical 75-year
servation advocacy values and the importance of land- life cycle of an over- or underpass, these benefits effec-
scape connectivity (Lister 2012). In addition to provid- tively solve the problem of road mortality altogether
ing benefits to human and wildlife in the form of (Table 3). Unlike the costs of reducing bird-strikes by air-
increased safety and mobility, crossing infrastructure can craft (which are ongoing and calculated annually) WVCs
serve as a source of important long-term data on wildlife can be reduced over the entire life of the mitigating infra-
movement and behavior. structure. For example, installing an overpass along a seg-
Long-term monitoring and research at more than 20 ment of roadway that has 3.2 deer–vehicle collisions km–1

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 15409309, 2015, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/150080 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [24/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Adaptive design for wildlife crossings N-M Lister et al.

496 yr–1 would generate economic benefits considerably in problem for smaller animals, which often make up a large
excess of its lifetime capital costs, in addition to provid- proportion of species identified in roadkill surveys
ing the ecological benefits of improved landscape con- (Huijser et al. 2009). Although intelligent vehicle tech-
nectivity and increased permeability (Huijser et al. 2009). nologies have the potential to reduce WVCs involving
When use over time is factored into cost–benefit analysis, some larger-bodied species, they cannot mitigate the
the benefits more than justify the cost of construction. effects of landscape fragmentation caused by the exten-
Yet these benefits do not appear to be widely under- sive and expanding road network itself, a process that
stood or valued. Kociolek et al. (2014) reported that 84% affects animal species irrespective of their size.
of surveyed professionals employed by US state-level
departments of transportation reported that their agency n Climate change and wildlife movement
had considered building a wildlife crossing to improve
road safety and landscape connectivity. However, the Along with the projected effects of climate change, habi-
majority of respondents cited economic reasons (eg lack tat fragmentation and loss constitute the greatest threats
of funding) as the primary barrier to implementation. In to biodiversity (Travis 2003), and these negative effects
addition, operational and jurisdictional barriers were are expected to increase substantially in the future. The
identified as further major impediments. Notably, there changing climate is projected to cause major shifts in the
are currently no known examples of agency-led planning potential ranges of species (Lawler et al. 2006) and the
and design protocols in place anywhere in North ability of species to keep up with these changes is likely to
America. Legislative support, coupled with leadership at be limited (Davis and Shaw 2001) both by individual
all levels of government, is clearly needed for the wide- species’ dispersal ability and by the barriers to movement
spread deployment of wildlife crossings. posed by habitat loss, fragmentation, and physical infra-
structure. Regardless of these limitations, climate-change
n Parallel technologies projections suggest that many wildlife species may be
forced to migrate in search of new habitats, using differ-
Other measures may also serve to mitigate WVCs, ent routes and patterns, as resources become scarce in
including intelligent vehicle (or collision avoidance) their current home ranges (Heller and Zavaleta 2009).
technologies that are being developed to reduce the inci- Dense road networks and associated habitat fragmenta-
dence of driver error, the cause of over 90% of vehicle tion will inevitably pose additional barriers for wildlife,
collisions (NHTSA 2008; Eskandarian 2012). These substantially affecting global biodiversity.
existing and projected technologies include, for instance, Evidence from past periods of climate change, contem-
forward collision warning and auto-brake systems; lane porary observations, and predictive models provide
departure warning and auto-correction systems; adaptive insights into the effects of changing climate on ecosys-
headlights; blind spot detection; and large-animal detec- tems. The paleoecological record shows shifts in species
tion systems (Forslund and Bjarkefur 2014). Proponents distributions as a result of climate changes dating back to
suggest that overall vehicle collisions, including WVCs, the glacial–interglacial transition (Graham et al. 1996;
could be reduced if human error were mitigated through Martínez-Meyer et al. 2004; Lister and Stuart 2008).
technological improvements to vehicles, and even more Shifts in species range and dispersal are cited as a primary
so if vehicles were to become fully autonomous. However, adaptive response to changing climate conditions
the ability of vehicle technologies to effectively identify (Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Vos et al. 2008; Williams et al.
small or even medium-sized wildlife is not well docu- 2008). Over recent decades, long-term changes in the
mented, as recognition technology is currently being distribution of flora and fauna have been documented
developed only for large mammals (Forslund and across both terrestrial and marine taxa, and in particular
Bjarkefur 2014). Road mortality will continue to be a insect and plant taxa (Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Root et
al. 2003; Heller and Zavaleta 2009), and
Table 2. Summary of estimated costs (in 2007 US dollars) for the average predictive models anticipate continued
collision between a vehicle and deer, elk, or moose (Huijser et al. 2009) effects of rising atmospheric carbon
Cost type Deer Elk Moose dioxide concentrations (Burns et al.
(Odocoileus spp) (Cervus canadensis) (Alces alces) 2003). A poleward shift in the northern
margins of species ranges, as well as
Vehicle repair $2622 $4550 $5600 expansion upward along elevation gradi-
Human injury medical $2702 $5403 $10 807
ents, is commonly observed in response
Human fatality insurance $1002 $6683 $13 366
Towing, accident attendance, $125 $375 $500
to rising temperatures (Hughes 2000;
and investigation Walther et al. 2002; Parmesan 2006;
Hunting value of animal $116 $397 $387 Chen et al. 2011).
Carcass removal and disposal $50 $75 $100 Habitat loss and land-cover changes in
urbanizing landscapes are projected to
Total $6617 $17 483 $30 760
further exacerbate the negative effects of

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

 15409309, 2015, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/150080 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [24/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
N-M Lister et al. Adaptive design for wildlife crossings

a warming climate and associated ecosystem changes considerable potential to enhance movement corridors 497
(Mawdsley et al. 2009). These impacts include impeding and permeability for terrestrial species across roadways
gene flow and increasing genetic isolation, as well as (Clevenger 2012; Sawaya et al. 2014). However, there is
diminishing the ability of species to relocate in order to inherent uncertainty in accurately predicting future distri-
accommodate geographic changes in resources and pre- butions and movements of wildlife under unprecedented
ferred climatic conditions (Soulé et al. 2006; Vos et al. climate scenarios, which complicates site selection for
2008). There are a variety of potential strategies to con- wildlife crossings (Mawdsley et al. 2009; Krosby et al.
serve and protect biodiversity as the effects of climate 2010). Conventional designs for fixed overpass structures
change on habitats and species ranges become ever-more are typically used as the basis for wildlife crossings, but
apparent. In addition to increasing the size of and connec- these structures are designed according to engineering
tivity between existing protected areas, strategies include standards for vehicle traffic loads rather than for surface
the management and restoration of ecosystem functions, habitat creation and wildlife movement (Lister 2012). As
translocation of at-risk species, and the enhancement of such, the engineering standards for conventional over-
landscape-level connectivity and permeability for a wide passes are a constraint to more innovative and flexible
variety of species (Williams et al. 2008; Heller and Zavaleta design solutions that could otherwise be adapted to chang-
2009; Lawler 2009; Mawdsley et al. 2009). Although ing habitats and conditions. Planning for and investing in
species may differ in their ability to move through a corri- conventional structural designs may prove ineffectual as
dor (Lawler 2009), many respond positively to landscape- habitats change in composition and location.
corridor infrastructure (Krosby et al. 2010). Accurately predicting future species movements is fur-
In this context, wildlife-crossing infrastructure may have ther complicated by major differences in anticipated con-

Table 3. Effectiveness and costs of wildlife–vehicle collision mitigation measures for large ungulates
Mitigation Crossing Present value Costs per percent
measures Effectiveness opportunity? Source† costs reduction
Seasonal wildlife 26% Yes Sullivan et al. (2004): 51%; $3728 $143
warning sign Rogers (2004): 0%
Vegetation removal 38% Yes Jaren et al. (1991): 56%; $16 272 $428
Lavsund and Sandegren (1991): 20%
Fence, gap, crosswalk 40% Yes Lehnert and Bissonette (1997): $300 468 $7512
42%, 37%
Population culling 50% Yes Review in Huijser et al. (2007a) $94 809 $1896
Relocation 50% Yes Review in Huijser et al. (2007a) $391 870 $7837
Anti-fertility treatment 50% Yes Review in Huijser et al. (2007a) $2 183 207 $43 664
Fence (including dig 86% No Reed et al. (1982): 79%; Ward $187 246 $2177
barrier) (1982): 90%; Woods (1990):
94–97%; Clevenger et al. (2001):
80%; Dodd et al. (2007): 87%
Fence, underpass, 86% Yes Reed et al. (1982): 79%; Ward $538 273 $6259
jump-out (1982): 90%; Woods (1990):
94–97%; Clevenger et al. (2001):
80%; Dodd et al.(2007): 87%
Fence, under- and 86% Yes Reed et al. (1982): 79%; Ward $719 667 $8368
overpass, jump-out (1982): 90%; Woods (1990):
94–97%; Clevenger et al. (2001):
80%; Dodd et al. (2007): 87%
Animal detection 87% Yes Mosler-Berger and Romer (2003): $1 099 370 $12 636
systems (ADS) 82%; Dodd and Gagnon (2008): 91%
Fence gap, ADS 87% Yes Mosler-Berger and Romer (2003): $836 113 $9610
82%; Dodd and Gagnon (2008): 91%
Elevated roadway 100% Yes Review in Huijser et al. (2007a) $92 355 498 $923 555
Road tunnel 100% Yes Review in Huijser et al. (2007a) $147 954 696 $1 479 547
Notes: “The estimated effectiveness, present value costs (in 2007 US$, 3% discount rate), and costs per percent reduction of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions
with large ungulates over a 75-year time period. The measures are ordered based on their estimated effectiveness. If a measure is estimated to be 86% effective, it means that
ungulate–vehicle collisions are estimated to reduce by 86% as a result of the implementation of that mitigation measure (eg a reduction from 100 collisions to 14 collisions)”
(Huijser et al. 2009). Table 3 reproduced from Huijser et al. (2009). †See Huijser et al. (2009) for all references cited within Table 3.

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 15409309, 2015, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/150080 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [24/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Adaptive design for wildlife crossings N-M Lister et al.

498 n Infrastructural innovation

Glass-reinforced
plastic habitat modules
In 2010, the ARC (Animal Road
Crossings) International Wildlife
Stick frame:
primary, secondary, and
Crossing Infrastructure Design
edge beams over piers Trees and shrubs Competition (reviewed in Lister
2012) was launched by a multi-
Grasses
stakeholder partnership between
Mulch
Parapet fence state and federal agencies and uni-
Biodegradable collar
and wood stakes versities, with the goal of exploring
Soil (6" – 48") new materials, methods, and strate-
Filter fabric
Gravel gies for wildlife-crossing infrastruc-
Drainage mat
Diagrid corten Lightweight fill (24" – 42") ture. Motivated by ongoing percep-
structural frame Foam insulation
tions that the cost of wildlife
Drainage GRP container
crossings were a major barrier to
Corten diagrid
their widespread implementation,
the ARC competition challenged
Columns respondents to develop structural
Footings
Under-drainage
designs specific to wildlife that
Interstate 70 would reduce costs, incorporate
material innovations, and add value
Figure 2. An innovative and modular wildlife-crossing design. Habitat modules can be (eg by making more modular or
reused and adapted to suit present and future ecological conditions (adapted from Olin adaptable designs; Lister 2012). In
Studio 2010). this way, the competition engaged
interdisciplinary and international
nectivity needs even for individual species. Species teams of engineers, landscape architects, and ecologists to
responses to changes in climate are highly variable in create the next generation of wildlife-crossing infrastruc-
terms of patterns and pace, and are to some degree unpre- ture for North America’s roadways. Design teams were
dictable due to interacting drivers of ecosystem change challenged to develop novel solutions for wildlife-cross-
coupled with the magnitude and rate of current climate ing structures that would be cost-efficient, ecologically
changes (Walther et al. 2002; Root et al. 2003; Chen et al. responsive (ie capable of responding to ecological
2011). Complex and non-linear interactions within eco- changes through landscape architectural design interven-
logical communities underline the need to mitigate land- tions), safe, and flexible. The finalists developed concept
scape fragmentation to counteract more than anticipated solutions that could be readily adapted for widespread use
range changes. Although many of the large terrestrial in different locations under varying conditions – among
species prone to road mortality (eg bears [Ursus spp], other innovations, these included stackable, modular
cougars [Puma concolor], pronghorn [Antilocapra ameri- components; lightweight resin materials; and inter-
cana], and lynx [Felis canadensis]) have large ranges within changeable habitat modules (Figure 2). The ARC com-
North America, the preservation of apex predator species petitors also faced the unique challenge of designing an
can serve as a buffer for climate-change effects by pre- integrated solution for two very different user groups –
venting cascading food-chain effects within ecological humans and wildlife – each with different needs and pri-
communities (Sala 2006). orities, yet sharing the need for safe passage across roads.
Early calls to action regarding climate mitigation were The conceptual design solutions that resulted from the
dominated by the need to reduce atmospheric greenhouse- competition have been influential in engaging research
gas emissions. More recently, mounting evidence of wide- and building public awareness, if not yet policy, for the
spread and unanticipated climate-change effects has neces- planning and design of wildlife-crossing infrastructure
sitated a shift in focus and generated political urgency to (ARC Solutions 2014).
address practical strategies for the adaptation of human The winning concept design by HNTB Engineering
and ecological systems to these unexpected changes. In the and Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates Inc (landscape
face of such uncertainty, a flexible, integrated, and adap- architects) offers insights and opportunities for a new
tive response to climate change has considerable advan- class of infrastructure (Lister 2012). Their proposal
tages. Ecologically adaptive wildlife-crossing infrastructure (Figure 3) for a pillar-free, modular structure makes use of
emphasizes one precautionary approach to facilitate ordinary materials and technology in addition to well-
responsive, evidence-based action – via feedback gathered established construction techniques, thereby offering
through ongoing monitoring – and to mitigate uncertainty both feasibility and adaptability. The structure employs a
associated with predicting changes in habitat composition three-hinged arch – a hyperbolic parabaloid (hypar) vault
as well as wildlife needs and movements. – which relies on a pre-cast, thin-shell concrete module

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

 15409309, 2015, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/150080 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [24/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
N-M Lister et al. Adaptive design for wildlife crossings

designed to safely disperse the energy of an 499

uneven and dynamic load. The concrete mod-
ules can be readily fabricated at many pre-casting
facilities across the continent, which reduces
transportation and construction costs, and the
forms can be assembled onsite, resulting in mini-
mal site disturbance (and associated costs).
Importantly for climate adaptation, the concrete
hypar forms can be readily expanded or adapted
onsite if monitoring data suggest a change in

HNTB and MVVA (2010)

wildlife movement or requirements (Figure 4).

n Toward an integrated, adaptive design

approach
Figure 3. Stacking two worlds: a pillar-free and modular integrated wildlife
Despite a growing body of evidence that overpass design constructed using precast concrete.
wildlife-crossing infrastructure is an effective
tool for mitigation and adaptation to changing environ- bility for the planning and delivery of this class of infra-
mental conditions, the innovations developed in both structure cuts across scales (urban, regional, and
research and design discussed here have been slow to national) and jurisdictions (municipal, state/provincial,
materialize. The problem is a multi-sectoral priority, and regional, and federal). As such, success can be achieved
is complex, multi-faceted, and growing. More specifi- only through an integrated and coordinated multi-sec-
cally, the costs and risks associated with WVCs are grow- toral and multi-agency effort – an approach that must
ing, as are threats to wildlife habitat posed by developing also adapt to changing conditions through monitoring
urban regions in which road networks are increasingly and feedback into next-generation practices.
dense. Changing environmental conditions compound There is a critical need for policy alignment within and
this already complex problem. As such, it is imperative between government departments, as well as policy
that policy makers, resource managers, ecologists and coherence between levels of government, to address com-
related scientists, transportation planners, landscape plex socioecological problems (Burch et al. 2014). Policy-
architects, and engineers collaborate formally and proac- relevant, transdisciplinary, and collaborative approaches
tively to help find effective and creative strategies to that are adaptive and flexible will be required to solve
design and implement wildlife-crossing structures.
While European countries typically have federal
Hypar vault
or regional planning protocols in place, North
American examples are largely ad hoc (IENE
2012; Brocki et al. 2014). There is a considerable
policy gap in that no single agency in North
America is currently responsible for overseeing Bike tunnel option
the planning and construction of such structures,
and existing agencies alone clearly cannot pro-
vide comprehensive data, planning, design, or
policy expertise.
Although cost is an oft-cited barrier to deploy- Sound barrier
ment, the more pernicious obstacle to widespread
adoption is conventional governance – and in par-
ticular, fragmented and locally competitive juris-
dictional and institutional arrangements. Retaining wall
Although all citizens effectively pay for the social
and ecological costs of WVCs and habitat frag-
mentation, the problem is not in the purview or
budget of any one agency and is not addressed in
any comprehensive policy framework or planning Fence
legislation. Infrastructure-based solutions to habi-
tat fragmentation have demonstrated success, but
planning, designing, constructing, deploying, and Figure 4. Individual precast concrete modules can be arranged, adapted,
monitoring these structures must be coordinated, and scaled in response to site context (adapted from HNTB and MVVA
collaborative, and formally integrated. Responsi- 2010).

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 15409309, 2015, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/150080 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [24/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Adaptive design for wildlife crossings N-M Lister et al.

500 An integrated design approach must address the policy

gap in relation to the implementation of wildlife-crossing
infrastructure through the development of a comprehen-
sive planning framework. A key part of this framework will
be to develop national datasets of standards in best- and
next-practices. With a coordinated and integrated
approach to evidence-based design, planning agencies will
be better positioned to establish novel methods to design,
procure, construct, and relocate adaptive (eg modular),
flexible, and innovative structures. In addition, it will be
critical to develop and implement shared protocols for
monitoring newly deployed infrastructure to ensure con-
tinuous learning and to incorporate data and feedback into
next-generation designs. This approach must also integrate
results into public education programs, as well as the train-
ing of relevant professionals and agency participants.
Site and context Ecology Structure
n Conclusions
Figure 5. An integrated design approach is needed for both
infrastructure and policy. Infrastructure must adapt to changing As climate-change effects continue to accrue, wildlife-
conditions through monitoring and feedback; management policies crossing infrastructure clearly has multiple ecological and
and design practices must be responsive and sensitive to site, social benefits, from reconnecting habitats to creating
context, and local ecology. Image credits: (top) HNTB and new, linked habitats, while largely solving the problem of
MVVA (2010); (bottom) M Brocki. WVCs. But the widespread deployment of this infrastruc-
ture necessitates crossing disciplines and boundaries, and
such problems, including those associated with habitat is currently hampered by a lack of coherent policy within
fragmentation and especially in the context of unpre- a formally integrated decision-making framework.
dictable and unprecedented environmental changes. Successfully deploying such infrastructure will be possible
McGowan and Westley (2014) and others have argued through integrated and adaptive approaches, supported by
that such “messy” problems can benefit from collabora- political leadership and transparent, full-cost accounting.
tive design and experiential learning-by-doing to gener- This initiative also has the potential to connect research
ate transformative learning and to mobilize knowledge with innovative, timely, and context-specific design and
(Dale 2001). policy outcomes – solutions that are urgently needed as
We recommend an integrated and adaptive design wildlife species face increasing threats on our roads.
approach for both a policy framework for planning and
implementation, and the physical and programmatic n Acknowledgements
infrastructural design. In addition to coordinating across
jurisdictional scales and agencies, policy and planning We thank T Clevenger and The Western Transportation
initiatives for wildlife-crossing infrastructure must explic- Institute at Montana State University for providing lead-
itly recognize the interdisciplinary nature of the physical ership in road ecology research and A Harrison at
infrastructure itself (Figure 5). The structural compo- Ryerson University for research assistance. Special
nents of wildlife crossings must necessarily include and thanks to the Woodcock Foundation and ARC
affect the engineered superstructure of the overpass (or Solutions, partners for sustained leadership through seed
substructure of the underpass), the roadway, the approach and leveraged funding for related project initiatives, and
lands on either side of the roadway, and the vegetated to Ryerson University for a partnership development seed
landscape surface of the crossing itself. The habitat sur- grant. Thanks to K Hill for inspiring the title.
face of an overpass is both site- and species-specific and
must be designed for target species under local environ- n References
mental conditions. To be successful, the procurement and ARC Solutions. 2014. Design parameters report. Workshop for
commissioning policies for any wildlife-crossing infra- wildlife-crossing infrastructure. Bozeman, MT: Western
Transportation Institute, Montana State University.
structure must consider all design elements and required Beckmann JP, Clevenger AP, Huijser MP, et al. 2010. Safe passages:
components from the outset of the project, including highways, wildlife, and habitat connectivity. Washington, DC:
engineered superstructure and landscape architectural Island Press.
habitat design. Without an explicitly integrated Bekker H and Vastenhout M. 1995. Natuur over wegen/Nature
across motorways. Delft, The Netherlands: Rijkswaterstaat.
approach, these structures are likely to become little more Benítez-López A, Alkemade R, and Verweij PA. 2010. The impacts
than modified standard bridges with nominal habitat and of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird popula-
low- to non-functioning landscape elements. tions: a meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 143: 1307–16.

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

 15409309, 2015, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/150080 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [24/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
N-M Lister et al. Adaptive design for wildlife crossings

Brocki M, Yuan J, and Lister N-M. 2014. Wildlife crossing design Intelligent Vehicles Symposium IV; 8–11 Jun 2014; Dearborn,
recommendations: innovation in overpass design. Technical MI. IEEE.
501
report for ARC Solutions. www.arc-solutions.org. Viewed 4 Jul Glista DJ, DeVault TL, and DeWoody JA. 2009. A review of miti-
2015. gation measures for reducing wildlife mortality on roadways.
Burch S, Shaw A, Dale A, et al. 2014. Triggering transformative Landscape Urban Plan 91: 1–7.
change: a development path approach to climate response in Graham RW, Lundelius Jr EL, Graham MA, et al. 1996. Spatial
communities. Clim Policy 14: 467–87. response of mammals to late Quaternary environmental fluctu-
Burns CE, Johnston KM, and Schmitz OJ. 2003. Global climate ations. Science 272: 1601–06.
change and mammalian species diversity in US national parks. Heller NE and Zavaleta ES. 2009. Biodiversity management in the
P Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 11474–77. face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommenda-
Chen IC, Hill JK, Ohlemüller R, et al. 2011. Rapid range shifts of tions. Biol Conserv 142: 14–32.
species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science HNTB and MVVA (HNTB Engineering and Michael Van
333: 1024–26. Valkenburgh Associates Inc). 2010. ARC International Wild-
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). 2013. The world factbook life Crossing Infrastructure Design Competition. Available at
2013–14. Washington, DC: CIA. arc-solutions.org.
Clevenger AP. 2005. Conservation value of wildlife crossings: mea- Hughes L. 2000. Biological consequences of global warming: is the
sures of performance and research directions. GAIA 14: signal already apparent? Trends Ecol Evol 15: 56–61.
124–29. Huijser MP, McGowen P, Fuller J, et al. 2007. Wildlife–vehicle colli-
Clevenger AP. 2012. Mitigating continental-scale bottlenecks: sion reduction study: report to Congress. Washington, DC: US
how small-scale highway mitigation has large-scale impacts. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Ecol Restor 30: 300–07. Huijser MP, Duffield JW, Clevenger AP, et al. 2009. Cost–benefit
Clevenger AP and Barrueto M (Eds). 2014. Trans-Canada highway analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions
wildlife and monitoring research. Final report. Part B: research. with large ungulates in the United States and Canada: a deci-
www.westerntransportationinstitute.org/documents/reports/4 sion support tool. Ecol Soc 14: 15–41.
W1713_Final_Report_PartB.pdf. Viewed 22 Sep 2015. IENE (Infra Eco Network Europe). 2012. Safeguarding ecological
Clevenger AP, Ford AT, and Sawaya MA. 2009. Banff wildlife functions across transport infrastructure. Proceedings of the
crossings project: integrating science and education in restor- IENE International Conference; 21–24 Oct 2012; Berlin-
ing population connectivity across transportation corridors. Potsdam, Germany. Berlin, Germany: Swedish Biodiversity
Final report. http://arc-solutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/ Centre.
03/Clevenger-et-al-2009-Banff-wildlife-crossings-project.pdf. Kociolek AV, Ament RJ, Callahan AR, et al. 2014. Wildlife cross-
Viewed 22 Sep 2015. ings: the new norm for transportation planning. ITE J 4:
Clevenger AP and Huijser MP. 2009. Handbook for design and 45–47.
evaluation of wildlife crossing structures in North America. Krosby M, Tewksbury J, Haddad NM, et al. 2010. Ecological con-
Washington, DC: Department of Transportation, Federal nectivity for a changing climate. Conserv Biol 24: 1686–89.
Highway Administration. Laurance WF, Gopalasamy RC, Sloan S, et al. 2014. A global strat-
Clevenger AP and Waltho N. 2000. Factors influencing the effec- egy for road building. Nature 514: 229–32.
tiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Lawler JJ, White D, Neilson RP, et al. 2006. Predicting climate-
Alberta, Canada. Conserv Biol 14: 47–56. induced range shifts: model differences and model reliability.
Clevenger AP and Waltho N. 2005. Performance indices to iden- Glob Change Biol 12: 1568–84.
tify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating move- Lawler JJ. 2009. Climate change adaptation strategies for resource
ment of large mammals. Biol Conserv 121: 453–64. management and conservation planning. Ann NY Acad Sci
Clevenger AP and Wierzchowski J. 2006. Maintaining and restor- 1162: 79–98.
ing connectivity in landscapes fragmented by roads. In: Crooks Lister AM and Stuart AJ. 2008. The impact of climate change on
KR and Sanjayan M (Eds). Connectivity conservation. large mammal distribution and extinction: evidence from the
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. last glacial/interglacial transition. C R Geosci 340: 615–20.
Crooks KR and Sanjayan M (Eds). 2006. Connectivity conserva- Lister N-M. 2012. Crossing the road, raising the bar: the ARC
tion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. International Design Competition. Ecol Restor 30: 335–40.
Dale A. 2001. At the edge: sustainable development in the 21st Martínez-Meyer E, Townsend Peterson A, and Hargrove WW.
century. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia 2004. Ecological niches as stable distributional constraints on
Press. mammal species, with implications for Pleistocene extinctions
Davis SC, Diegel SW, and Boundy RG. 2011. Table 3.5: Vehicles and climate change projections for biodiversity. Global Ecol
per thousand people in other countries, 2002 and 2012. In: Biogeogr 13: 305–14.
Transportation energy data book: edition 30. Washington, DC: Mawdsley JR, O’Malley E, and Ojima DS. 2009. A review of cli-
US Department of Energy. mate change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and
Davis MB and Shaw RG. 2001. Range shifts and adaptive biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 23: 1080–89.
responses to Quaternary climate change. Science 272: 673–79. McGowan K and Westley F. 2014. Design thinking, wicked prob-
Dulac J. 2013. Global land transport infrastructure requirements: lems, messy plans. In: Reed C and Lister N-M (Eds). Projective
estimating road and railway infrastructure capacity and costs to ecologies. Cambridge, MA, and New York, NY: Harvard
2050. Paris, France: IEA Publications. University and ACTAR.
Eskandarian A. 2012. Introduction to intelligent vehicles. In: MNR (Ministry of Natural Resources). 2008. Strategy for prevent-
Eskandarian A (Ed). Handbook of intelligent vehicles. ing and managing human–wildlife conflicts in Ontario.
London, UK: Springer London. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Fahrig L and Rytwinski T. 2009. Effects of roads on animal abun- NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2008.
dance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecol Soc 14: 21–41. National motor vehicle crash causation survey: report to
Forman RTT. 2003. Road ecology: science and solutions. Congress. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
Washington, DC: Island Press. www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF. Viewed 5 Jul 2015.
Forman RTT and Alexander LE. 1998. Roads and their major eco- Olin Studio. 2010. ARC International Wildlife Crossing
logical effects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 29: 207–31. Infrastructure Design Competition. Available at arc-
Forslund D and Bjarkefur J. 2014. Night vision animal detection. solutions.org.

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 15409309, 2015, 9, Downloaded from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/150080 by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [24/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Adaptive design for wildlife crossings N-M Lister et al.

Parmesan C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent Travis JMJ. 2003. Climate change and habitat destruction: a deadly
502 climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 37: 637–69. anthropogenic cocktail. P R Soc B 270: 467–73.
Parmesan C and Yohe G. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of Trombulak SC and Frisell CA. 2000. Review of ecological effects of
climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv Biol 14:
37–42. 18–30.
Root TL, Price JT, Hall KR, et al. 2003. Fingerprints of global UN (United Nations). 2014. World urbanization prospects: 2014
warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421: 57–60. revision. New York, NY: UN. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/High
Rytwinski T, van der Ree R, Cunnington GM, et al. 2015. lights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf. Viewed 8 Mar 2015.
Experimental study designs to improve the evaluation of road Van der Ree R, Jaeger JAG, van der Grift E, et al. 2011. Effects of
mitigation measures for wildlife. J Environ Manage 154: roads and traffic on wildlife populations and landscape func-
48–64. tion. Ecol Soc 16: 48–57.
Sala E. 2006. Top predators provide insurance against climate Vanlaar WGM, Gunson KE, Brown SW, et al. 2012. Wildlife vehi-
change. Trends Ecol Evol 21: 479–80. cle collisions in Canada: a review of the literature and a com-
Sawaya MA, Clevenger AP, and Kalinowski ST. 2013. pendium of existing data sources. Ottawa, Canada: Traffic
Demographic connectivity for ursid populations at wildlife Injury Research Foundation.
crossing structures in Banff National Park. Conserv Biol 27: Vos CC, Berry P, Opdam P, et al. 2008. Adapting landscapes to cli-
721–30. mate change: examples of climate-proof ecosystem networks
Sawaya MA, Kalinowski ST, and Clevenger AP. 2014. Genetic and priority adaptation zones. J Appl Ecol 45: 1722–31.
connectivity for two bear species at wildlife crossing. P R Soc B Walther GR, Post E, Convey P, et al. 2002. Ecological responses to
281: 20131705. recent climate change. Nature 416: 389–95.
Soulé ME, Mackey BG, Recher HF, et al. 2006. The role of connec- WHO (World Health Organization). 2014. Global health observa-
tivity in Australian conservation. Pac Conserv Biol 10: 266–79. tory: urban population growth. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
Spellerberg IF. 2002. Ecological effects of roads. Enfield, NH: www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_popu
Science Publishers. lation_growth_text/en. Viewed 5 Jul 2015.
State Farm Insurance Canada. 2011. Watch out for roadside Williams SE, Shoo LP, Isaac JL, et al. 2008. Towards an integrated
wildlife: State Farm data shows increased risk in autumn and framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate
spring collisions with deer and moose (Ontario News Bulletin). change. PLoS Biol 6: 2621–26.

FULL-TIME FACULTY
Liberal Studies – Arts and Science, New York University
Liberal Studies at New York University invites applications for full-time faculty positions to begin September 1, 2016, pending administrative and
budgetary approval.
Liberal Studies is an interdisciplinary program and we welcome applicants from a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds. Liberal Studies offers the
Bachelor of Arts in Global Liberal Studies, which has established itself among NYU’s range of premier liberal arts degrees, and an innovative, two-
year global core curriculum program whose students may complete their degrees in any of NYU’s liberal arts divisions.
We seek colleagues in the following areas who will, as needed, teach both advanced classes in the fields of specialization listed and courses in the
global core:
• Environmental Studies
PhD in Environmental Science or Biology with Environmental emphasis
• Writing Studies, with secondary specialty in New Media Journalism
Appropriate terminal degree in English, Journalism, Media Studies, Creative Writing, Writing Studies, or Rhetoric

Minimum qualifications: a Ph.D. or other appropriate terminal degree in hand by the date of appointment; three years of college-level teaching
experience; and demonstrated excellence in teaching. Publications or other evidences of outstanding scholarship and relevant professional activity
are strongly preferred.
All Liberal Studies full-time faculty hold renewable term contracts, initially three years, and later potentially five years in duration. There is no limit
to the number of times a contract may be renewed, contingent upon satisfactory performance. Faculty normally teach three classes per semester.
Faculty are also expected to remain engaged in their fields of expertise, to advise undergraduates, and to contribute service to the program and to the
University.
Applications consisting only of a cover letter and a current curriculum vitae should be submitted by November 9th, 2015 [Writing
Studies]/January 4th, 2016 [Environmental Studies]. Applications submitted after this date will not be considered. Full instructions for submit-
ting an application and additional information about these positions and about the program may be found in an extended position description at:

www.nyu.edu/projects/mediamosaic/1516LSJobs
EOE/Minorities/Females/Vet/Disabled

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America