Vilt(passage) på rätt väg. : Faunabroars effekt på olyckor

One of the major problems with today's infrastructure is that many of our major road networks were built before humans understood the need for environmental impact assessments and biodiversity. This means that many of our roads have not been built to affect it as little as possible. The infrastructure is increasing, and our wild animals are being harmed when they are either threatened by being hit or we are affecting diversity when we try to reduce the number of wildlife accidents and thus find solutions such as wildlife fencing to prevent accidents. The disadvantage, however, is a fragmented landscape and reduced biodiversity when populations become isolated from each other due to the lack of connections. To try to solve this, fauna passages are being created to increase connectivity for our animals and to contribute with solutions for the animals. This study aims to investigate whether wildlife bridges reduce the number of wildlife accidents by offering safe passage for animals over traffic routes, whether there is a relationship between the distance to the wildlife passage and the frequency of wildlife accidents, and whether the frequency of wildlife accidents for specific animal species is affected by the proximity to wildlife passages? The results showed that wildlife accidents appear to increase from 2015 to 2024 within 5 kilometers of the wildlife bridges. The number of deer killed in accidents also appears to increase from 2015 to 2024, while the other animal species included in the studies (elk, wild boar and red deer) are either rare or absent at many faunal bridges, and therefore no individual analyses of the animal species are made, but only an overall picture. Comparing number of wildlife accidents close to the wildlife bridges and nearby sites along the same road in the same year showed that both deer and total wildlife accidents were lower at wildlife bridges compared to other areas. The results also show that wildlife bridges can have some effect on the geographical distribution of wildlife accidents, especially for deer within a kilometer of the bridges. However, no clear reduction in accidents was observed in the vicinity of all bridges over time, which suggests that the effect is not general. A possible interpretation is that wildlife bridges, especially in combination with wildlife fencing, can contribute to reducing accidents locally, but that other factors such as road type, traffic intensity and the design of the vegetation around the bridges also play an important role. However, comparison during the same year indicate that the absolute number of accidents were fewer close to the wildlife bridges compared to other nearby sites. Looking ahead, the results point to the need for more species-specific design of wildlife passages as well as further research with GPS tracking and analysis of animal movement patterns to see whether the animals actually use the wildlife bridges for their purpose or rather cross the road further away or take alternative routes and thus perish further from the wildlife bridge.