Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 27
27 mitigation needs early in planning was ranked as the top prior- Research priorities. The top five research priorities were ity by all professions except by planners. The median ranked not as tightly ranked as the practice priorities among em- value for this priority among planners was 9.0, similar to the 9.1 ployer classes. The top four research priorities were each value for natural resource professionals. However, planners within the top six rankings of every employee class; however, rated the need to combine animal-friendly mitigation methods each class ranked them differently. For example, the overall priority as number one (9.2 median value), and early planning number one priority to better understand the dynamics of as their second highest priority. Engineers ranked the need for animal use of mitigation structures was ranked by every class effective communication second, while natural resource of employee as number one, except for consulting company professionals ranked the need to combine animal-friendly mit- personnel who ranked this priority second and the need for igation methods second. Using conservation plans and connec- cost-effective crossing designs as their number one priority. tivity analyses ranked alternatively third and fourth among all Several priorities were ranked within the top five of specific three professions. Further ranking of the top five practice pri- employee groups but did not make the top five overall orities for the three professions can be seen in Appendix A: research priorities. University professionals (typically re- Tables 39, 40, and 41. searchers) ranked fourth the need to develop guidelines to decide when wildlife mitigation is necessary, as did those em- Research priorities. All professions ranked the following ployed by state/provincial transportation agencies and those top two priorities identically: to better understand the dy- working for consulting companies. This priority was rated namics of animal use of mitigation structures, and to develop sixth for research in the overall survey. University profes- alternative, cost-effective crossing designs. Planners and nat- sionals and natural resource agency professionals rated the ural resource professionals ranked the need to develop need to increase our understanding of the effects of road den- wildlife crossing structure designs and guidelines for the full sity on wildlife populations fifth and fourth, respectively, suite of animals in an area third, while engineers/analysts while it rated eighth overall. ranked it fifth, and the need to develop guidelines to decide The priority to improve ecosystem valuation for use in when wildlife mitigation is necessary as third. The fourth and mitigation measures and to help establish cost-effectiveness fifth ranked research priorities among the different profes- was rated overall as the tenth research priority, but was highly sions were not as closely ranked as the top five practice prior- rated by two types of employees, those working for non-profit ities (Appendix A: Tables 39, 40, and 41), and select priorities organizations (rated second), and federal transportation were ranked significantly different. agency professionals (rated fifth). Priorities by Employer Interpretation, Appraisal, and Applications Practice priorities. The top five practice priorities for all There was a consistent trend in the results for participants, employer classes were identical but ordered differently. The regardless of geography, profession, or employer type, to rank top priority of the survey, early planning for wildlife, was rated the same five practice priorities in their top five. The one number one by all except federal transportation professionals exception was the fourth rank that 36 Canadians gave to the (ranked third) and consulting company personnel (ranked need for the use of standardized and vetted protocols for col- second). The second ranked practice priority, to combine lecting and recording roadkill carcass and WVC data. Other animal-friendly mitigation methods, was ranked differently Canadian differences may be in part because the majority of among the different types of employees. The third practice pri- Canada still has its full suite of large animals. With such a ority, to use conservation plans and connectivity analyses, was diversity of wildlife, the risks to drivers from collisions with rated as the top priority by federal transportation agency em- both ungulates and predators are much greater than typical ployees, second by federal and state natural resource agency animal collisions in the United States. However, because of the personnel, and those working for non-profit groups, and third low number of Canadian participants, the research team can- or fourth for the remaining types of employees. The fourth not extrapolate the importance of this priority to Canada, but practice priority, to establish effective communication, was it represents a trend worth mentioning. ranked as the second highest priority by those working for fed- These results provide clear guidance to help governments, eral and state transportation agencies, and fourth or fifth for all agencies, organizations, universities, companies, and indi- other types of employees. The fifth overall practice priority, to viduals focus their efforts in developing the future state of incorporate wildlife crossing options that can be accomplished practice. Fundamental parameters will include early incor- by maintenance crews through retrofits, was ranked either poration of wildlife needs into the planning processes, a com- fourth or fifth among all types of employees. Further detail is bination of animal-friendly mitigation methods rather than provided in Appendix A (Tables 39, 40, and 41). just fences, conservation plans and connectivity analyses to