Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14249/eia.2019.28.6.525

Evaluation of Wildlife Crossings Eeffectiveness on Use Frequency and Diversity Indicators of Wildlife  

Woo, Donggul (National Institute of Ecology)
Seo, Hyunjin (National Institute of Ecology)
Park, Taejin (National Institute of Ecology)
Song, Euigeun (National Institute of Ecology)
Kim, Kyungmin (National Institute of Ecology)
Choi, Taeyoung (National Institute of Ecology)
Publication Information
Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment / v.28, no.6, 2019 , pp. 525-535 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, 49 major WCS(Wildlife Crossing Structure), including Baekdu-daegan, were evaluated for the effectiveness of WCS on using the daily average frequency index and diversity Index comparing the number of species that appear with the surrounding habitats. According to the analysis, the average use frequency of the entire WCS was 1.4 times, and the average number of WCS exceeded the average was 17 and 34.7 percent of the total. There were 18 WCS with the same number of habitats and species that appeared in the same area, or 36.7 percent of the total. The daily average use frequency and variety were all analyzed at 10 efficient WCS, accounting for 20.4 percent of the total. According to the results of an site survey on the compliance rate of 4 efficient WCS, the compliance rate of the Deoksanjae overpass was the best in location selection, specifications, vegetation cover and soil, fence. The results of this research will be used as basic data for the study of WCS effectiveness, including the improvement of functions of new and installed WCS.
Keywords
Wildlife Crossing Structure; Effectiveness Assessment; Frequency Index; Diversity Index;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Barrueto M, Ford AT, Clevenger AP. 2014. Anthropogenic effects on activity patterns of wildlife at crossing structures. Ecosphere 5(3): 1-19.   DOI
2 Bellis M. 2008. Evaluating the effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures in Southern Vermont, Master Theses in University of Massachusetts Amherst
3 Bergen NH. 2018. Evaluating the success and monitoring the usage of wildlife crossing structures in Bedminser, NJ
4 Choi TY, Park CH. 2006. The effects of land use on the frequency of mammal roadkills in Korea. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 34(5): 52-58. [Korean Literature]
5 Choi TY, Yang BG, Woo DG. 2012. The Suitable Types and Measures of Wildlife Crossing Structures for Mammals of Korea. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 21(1): 209-2018. [Korean Literature]   DOI
6 Clevenger AP. 2011. Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook Design and Evaluation in North America. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Report.
7 Clevenger AP, Waltho N. 2000. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Wildlife Underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Can.
8 Clevenger AP, Barrueto M. 2014. Trans-Canada Highway Wildlife and Monitoring Research. Final Report Part B. Radium Hot Springs, British Columbia.
9 Jonsson. 2017. Spatial modeling of wildlife crossing_GIS-based approach for identifying highpriority locations of defragmentation across transport corriodrs
10 Korea National Park Service. 2009. Comprehensive plan on mitigation measures to reduce roadkill in National Park.
11 Lee YU, Lee MW. 2006. Eco-corridor positioning for target species -by field surveying of mammals' road-Kill-, Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology [Korean Literature]
12 NIE (National Institute of Ecology). 2015. A study on analysis of habitat fragmentation and improvement of wildlife passage effectiveness.
13 NIE (National Institute of Ecology). 2016. Fundamental research on the conservation of national ecological network.
14 Park JJ, Woo DG, Oh DH, Park JH. 2012. Site selection of wildlife passage for Leopard Cat in urban area using space syntax. Journal of Korean Institute of landscape architecture 40(1):92-99. [Korean Literature]   DOI
15 NIE (National Institute of Ecology). 2017. Fundamental research on the conservation of national ecological network.
16 NIE (National Institute of Ecology). 2018. Fundamental research on the conservation of national ecological network.
17 MOLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport). 2018. Investigation of Roads Status
18 Soanes K, Taylor AC, Sunnucks P, Vesk PA, Cesarini S, Ree RVD. 2018. Evaluating the success of wildlife crossing structures using genetic approaches and an experimental design-Lessons from a gliding mammal. Journal of Applied Ecology 55(1): 129-138.   DOI
19 Shin SA, Ahn DM. 2008. Approach to the Location of Wildlife Corridors on Highways -Between Yang-jae and Pan-gyo ICs of Seoul -Busan Highway, Korea-, Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology [Korean Literature]
20 Simpson NO, Stewart KM, Schroeder D, Cox M, Huebner K, Wasley T. 2016. Overpass and underpass: effectiveness of crossing structures for Migratory Ungulates. The Journal of Wildlife Management 80(8): 1370-1378.   DOI
21 Van der Grift EA, Van der Ree R. 2015. Guidelines for evaluating use of wildlife crossing structures. Handbook of Road Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
22 Wang J. 2014. Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossing Structures on Providing Habitat Connectivity for Wild Animals. Master Theses in University of British Columbia.
23 Wang Y, Guan L, Piao Z, Wang Z, Kong Y. 2017. Monitoring wildlife crossing structures along highways in Changbai mountain China. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 50:119-128.   DOI