A constraints-led approach to coaching golf (original) (raw)
Related papers
2016
Wildlife fencing in combination with crossing structures is commonly regarded as the most effective and robust strategy to reduce large mammal–vehicle collisions while also maintaining wildlife connectivity across roads. However, fencing and associated measures may affect landscape esthetics and are sometimes considered costly and unpopular. Therefore fence length is often minimized. We investigated 1) whether short fenced road sections were similarly effective in reducing large mammal–vehicle collisions as long fenced road sections (literature review), and 2) whether fence length influenced large mammal use of underpasses (two field studies). We found that: 1) short fences (≤ 5 km road length) had lower (52.7%) and more variable (0–94%) effectiveness in reducing collisions than long fences (> 5 km) (typically > 80% reduction); 2) wildlife use of underpasses was highly variable, regardless of fence length (first field study); 3) most highway crossings occurred through isolated...
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING USE OF WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURES
Wildlife crossing structures help animals cross safely under or over roads or other linear infrastructure and hence play an important role in the conservation of biodiversity. Measuring the rate of use by wildlife is an important first step in almost every evaluation of wildlife crossing structures. Unfortunately, the majority of studies of the use of crossing structures by wildlife lack a proper study design which limits the quality or reliability of the findings. The design and methods of each study to evaluate the use of crossing structures must be tailor‐made because of differences among structures in their design, goals, target species, landscape and road conditions. 15.1 Identify and describe the target species for the wildlife crossing structure being evaluated. 15.2 For each target species, define the intended type and frequency of use. 15.3 Design the study to enable a comparison of actual rate of use and minimum expected rate of use. 15.4 Use data from control plots to est...
Landscape Characteristics Based on Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossing Structures in South Korea
Sustainability, 2021
Roads are notable and responsible for the loss of biodiversity and disruption of wildlife habitats connectivity. Wildlife crossing structures (WCS) help wildlife move between habitats by connecting fragmented habitats. Their effectiveness is affected by various factors. Here, to identify methods for improving the effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures, we controlled the effect of intrinsic factors, such as size, that are difficult to improve in an already installed area, and then, evaluated the differences in extrinsic factors using 12 landscape characteristics. Our results show that 18 wildlife crossing structures were selected with propensity-score (PS) matching method. The surrounding landscape characteristics differed between high-effectiveness wildlife crossing structures and low-effectiveness wildlife crossing structures. Particularly, there was a significant difference between the ‘statutory protected area’ and the ‘edge’ index of the morphological spatial pattern anal...
Strasse Und Autobahn, 2007
The use of 20 wildlife overpasses (green bridges) and 23 underpasses (10 viaducts, 6 river crossings or culverts, 7 wildlife underpasses) by medium sized and large mammals as well as about two dozens of small mammal underpasses and several non-wildlife passages have been studied during winter and spring 2004 and 2005. The study was carried out at three motorways, three highways and three state main roads in southern Germany (Baden-Württemberg) and at one motorway in northern Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). Amongst the observed animals were red deer, fallow deer, roe deer, wild boar, European hare, red fox, racoon dog, badger, beech marten (as well as pine marten and polecat) and otter. The results document that green bridges and larger viaducts were used most intensively (by about 85% of all animals recorded). The use of the smaller river crossings, culverts and small mammal underpasses was, with only 15% of all recorded animals, low. Fox, hare and roe deer accounted for about 72% (videos) and 89% (tracks) of passage crossings by animals. Using different multiple regression analyses eight of some 28 independent variables proved to be of significant influence in some cases on the use of green bridges by the species investigated: width showed a positive, length and age of the bridges as well as the amount of wooded area on the bridges, noise, human activities, number of roads leading to the bridges and buildings in their nearby neighbourhood a negative relation. The barrier effect of the roads studied seems to be mitigated sufficiently by the crossing structures although crossing rates are substantially lower than before road construction.
Effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures and adapted culverts in a highway in Northwest Spain
2010
An intensive monitoring was carried out between June and September 2002 in different passage types across a highway in NW Spain in order to determine their use by terrestrial vertebrates. We used marble dust-beds to get footprints and a complementary photographic system to identify species which cannot be distinguished by tracks. Footprint data (820 passage-days) were collected from 82 passage structures (33 circular culverts, 10 adapted culverts, 14 wide underpasses, 7 wildlife underpasses, 16 overpasses and 2 ecoducts). The number of recorded vertebrates was high (1,424 tracks, 78.8% wildlife, and 21.2% related to human activity; and 490 photographic contacts, 54.3% and 45.7% respectively). Small mammals (mice, voles and shrews) used the passageways most frequently (414 tracks), followed by lagomorphs (Iberian hare, Lepus granatensis, and rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus, N= 158), canids (Canis familiaris and C. lupus, N = 142), fox (Vulpes vulpes, N= 137) and lacertids (Lacerta spp. and Podarcis spp., N= 73). Underpasses and non-wildlife-engineered overpasses were the most used structures. Differences were found in the selection of crossing structures by the two lagomorphs, hares selecting wildlife underpasses while rabbits did not show a significative preference. Anurans and ophidians (Fam. Colubridae and Viperidae) showed a clear preference for adapted culverts, avoiding overpasses. Lacertids and small mammals crossed most frequently through circular culverts, but generally used all passage types. Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) and Badger (Meles meles) always selected highway underpasses while small mustelids (Mustela nivalis plus M. erminea) used culverts exclusively. Finally, foxes used all types of crossing structures, showing a preference for wide underpasses. Red deer (Cervus elaphus) were found to use wide passages under or above the road, and more frequently ecoducts, but roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) were never detected in crossing structures though very abundant in the area. Four recommendations arise from the study: (1) as a differential use among animal species has been found, it is necessary to keep several crossing structure types; (2) functional structures of the motorway (non-wildlife-engineered) play an important role in the permeability of the road, and their adaptation for wildlife enhances their use by some taxa. Thus, the adaptation of structures related to human activity plays a key role in the achievement of the best solution from a benefit-to-cost point of view. (3) The set of passageways necessary to mitigate the barrier effect suffered by a known mammal community can be established taking into account the animal sizes and the wideness and relative position of crossing structures to the road (over vs. under); however ,(4) it seems that some species may not cross through structures up to 20m wide, and thus some of the passageways should be wider (in the form of tunnels and/or viaducts).
2003
Human activities today often cause landscape habitat fragmentation and blockage of wildlife movements across landscapes and ecosystems. North American and European Union initiatives such as the Transportation Equity Act and COST-341 program have heightened the importance of mitigating the negative effects of roads, such as animal-vehicle collisions and barrier effects. Wildlife crossing structures are being incorporated into some road construction and improvement projects in an attempt to reduce negative effects on wildlife populations. Transportation and resource agencies are becoming increasingly accountable and therefore concerned as to whether highway mitigation measures are functional and perform to expected standards. However, there are presently gaps in our knowledge regarding the effectiveness of wildlife crossings structure applications. One reason for the lack of available information is that relatively few mitigation projects implement rigid monitoring programs with sufficient experimental design. Thus, results obtained from most studies remain anecdotal or descriptive at best. With sufficient lead-time, experimental study designs can provide rigorous assessments of highway impacts and wildlife crossing structure performance pre-versus post-construction. Alternative methods of post-construction assessment can be used if time does not permit for data collection during the pre-construction period. We review past and current methods used to evaluate wildlife crossing structures and examine criteria to consider when evaluating wildlife passage effectiveness. We focus on methods to monitor mammals and summarize representative studies published international journals and conference proceedings. We examine pre-and post-mitigation study designs versus evaluations that base effectiveness solely on post-mitigation monitoring. We make suggestions for conducting quality scientific evaluations that will allow transportation agencies to address the question, "Do wildlife crossing structures work?"
Biological Conservation, 2005
Studies assessing the efficacy of wildlife crossing structures often lead to spurious results because of their failure to address masking effects of confounding variables. Confounding variables include variation in human activity, density of crossing structures along the highway corridor, and equality of species' perceived access to each crossing structure. We investigated these issues for wide-ranging large carnivores and their prey species in Banff National Park, Alberta, using data obtained from systematic, year-round monitoring of 13 newly constructed crossing structures for wildlife (underpasses and overpasses) for 34 months post-construction. We standardized the first confounding variable by selecting crossing structures remote from areas of human activity. The second confounding variable we standardized by developing probability models of crossing structure usage assuming habitat homogeneity. We standardized the third confounding variable by developing species-specific, performance indices of crossing structures (=observed through passage usage–expected through passage usage). We regressed the species performance indices against 13 crossing structure variables encompassing structural, landscape, and human activity. Our results suggest that in absence of high human activity structural attributes best explained the performance indices for both large predator and prey species, while landscape and human-related factors were of secondary importance. Crossing structures that were high, wide and short in length strongly influenced passage by grizzly bears Ursus arctos, wolves Canis lupus, elk Cervus elaphus, and deer Odocoileus sp. More constricted crossing structures were favoured by black bears Ursus americanus and cougars Puma concolor. Distance to cover was the most important crossing structure landscape attribute for cougars (negative correlation) and was a significant factor determining passage for grizzly bears, elk and deer (all positive correlations). Our findings underscore the importance of: (a) integrating temporal and spatial variability a priori when addressing the efficacy of crossing structures, and; (b) demonstrate that species respond differently to crossing structure features. In light of these results, we suggest that to maximize connectivity across roads for multiple large mammal species, road construction schemes should include a diversity of crossing structures of mixed size classes. Mitigation planning in a multiple-species ecosystem is likely to be a challenging endeavour and long-term research will aid in the decision-making process.
ARC International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design Competition Brief
2010
"The ARC International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design Competition (ARC) invites international teams of design professionals to address new design challenges in the coalescent issues of road transportation safety, structural engineering, wildlife conservation and landscape ecology. Specifically, ARC seeks innovation in feasible, buildable, context-sensitive and compelling design solutions for safe, efficient, cost-effective, and ecologically responsive highway crossings for wildlife. In the broadest context, ARC will challenge competitors to reweave landscapes for wildlife using new methods, new materials, and new thinking. In doing so, the ARC competition aims to raise international awareness of a need to better reconcile human and wildlife mobility through a more creative, flexible and innovative system of road and habitat networks in our landscapes."
Sustainable Landscape Planning to Mitigate Wildlife–Vehicle Collisions
2021
Road development, traffic intensification, and collisions with wildlife represent a danger both for road safety and species conservation. For planners, deciding which mitigation methods to apply is often problematic. Through a kernel density estimate, we analyzed 715 crossing locations and wildlife–vehicle collisions (WVCs) involving brown bears, lynx, wolf, red deer, roe deer, and wild boar in the Southeastern Carpathian Mountains. We identified 25 WVC hotspots, of which eight require urgent mitigation of existing infrastructure. Moreover, many of these hotspots are in Natura 2000 sites, along road sections where vegetation is in close proximity, animal movement is the highest, and driver visibility is low. Our study is the first in Romania to recommend practical solutions to remediate WVC hotspots and benefit sustainable landscape management.