Steps three to five address the selection

of variables to measure, the selection of a study design, and the development of a suitable Cisplatin mouse sampling scheme. Steps six to eight address the selection of appropriate study sites, the determination of appropriate covariates, and the selection of appropriate survey methods. The final step is an assessment of the costs of evaluation and the feasibility of monitoring. Fig. 1 Process for setting up a monitoring plan for evaluating the effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures Although the steps in Fig. 1 are suggested as a logical sequence, in reality it may sometimes be necessary to revisit earlier steps to reconsider prior decisions. For example, Acalabrutinib concentration if no appropriate study sites can be found for a selected species, an alternative study design, measure or species must be selected. Or if the cost of a study surpasses the available budget, alternative selleck chemicals decisions on, e.g., study design or survey method should be made. Such iterations in the process may occur from step five onward (Fig. 1), but should be kept to a minimum. Step 1: Identify species and goals for mitigation The first step is to identify the target species that prompted the mitigation and formulate the specific goals for mitigation. A list of target species is

usually presented by the road authority responsible for the mitigation, often prepared in cooperation with other stakeholders such as wildlife managers and environmental planners. These lists may be based on (1) empirical studies, e.g., on road-kill or road-related changes in animal movements; (2) predictive (modeling) studies in which potential effects of mitigation measures are explored; and/or (3) expert-opinion. Occasionally, groups of species are targeted for mitigation, e.g., “small mammals”, “butterflies”, or “frogs”. This typically occurs as a result of expert opinion or when information is lacking. In such cases, a first step should be to specify targeted Diflunisal species to allow for an effective monitoring plan (van der Grift et al. 2009a). Selection

of target species for mitigation is based on considerations of human safety, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation. Human safety issues dominate when animal-vehicle collisions pose a significant risk to motorists. These species need not be of conservation concern. For example the construction of fences and wildlife crossing structures on Swedish highways is motivated primarily by concerns for human health risks associated with moose-vehicle collisions rather than a concern with the impacts of traffic mortality on the viability of moose populations (Seiler 2003). When animal welfare drives the selection of species, the motivation is that each animal affected by the road is one too many.