Limits...
Wildlife Warning Signs: Public Assessment of Components, Placement and Designs to Optimise Driver Response.

Bond AR, Jones DN - Animals (Basel) (2013)

Bottom Line: Evidence of the effectiveness of currently used signs is rare and often indicates minimal change in driver behaviour.Three currently used sign designs and five alternative sign designs were compared in the survey.Three signs consistently ranked high.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Environmental Futures Centre, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia. a.bond@griffith.edu.au.

ABSTRACT
Wildlife warning signs are the most commonly used and widespread form of road impact mitigation, aimed at reducing the incidence of wildlife-vehicle collisions. Evidence of the effectiveness of currently used signs is rare and often indicates minimal change in driver behaviour. Improving the design of these signs to increase the likelihood of appropriate driver response has the potential to reduce the incidence of wildlife-vehicle collisions. This study aimed to examine and assess the opinions of drivers on wildlife warning sign designs through a public opinion survey. Three currently used sign designs and five alternative sign designs were compared in the survey. A total of 134 drivers were surveyed. The presence of temporal specifications and an updated count of road-killed animals on wildlife warning signs were assessed, as well as the position of the sign. Drivers' responses to the eight signs were scaled separately at three speed limits and participants indicated the sign to which they were most likely to respond. Three signs consistently ranked high. The messages conveyed by these signs and their prominent features were explored. Animal-activated and vehicle speed-activated signs were ranked very highly by participants. Extensive field trials of various sign designs are needed to further this research into optimizing wildlife warning sign designs.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The proportion of participants that were more likely, less likely and equally likely to respond to a sign displaying specified time periods (a) inside and (b) outside the specified time period. N = 134.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494358&req=5

animals-03-01142-f002: The proportion of participants that were more likely, less likely and equally likely to respond to a sign displaying specified time periods (a) inside and (b) outside the specified time period. N = 134.

Mentions: The presence of season and time indicators on wildlife warning signs altered the likelihood that participants would react to signs inside and outside the specified periods. During the specified time period, 56.0% of participants were more likely, 38.8% were equally likely, and 5.2% were less likely to respond appropriately (χ2 = 53.567, df = 2, p = 2.334 × 10−12, Figure 2a). Outside the specified time period, 49.3% of participants were less likely, 46.3% were equally likely, and 4.5% were more likely to respond appropriately (χ2 = 50.388, df = 2, p = 1.144 × 10−11, Figure 2b). The addition of a count of the number of animals killed by vehicles over the previous year (or other time period) significantly increased the likelihood that participants would react to the wildlife warning sign (72.4% more likely to respond, χ2 = 102.731, df = 2, p = 2.2 × 10−16, Figure 3).


Wildlife Warning Signs: Public Assessment of Components, Placement and Designs to Optimise Driver Response.

Bond AR, Jones DN - Animals (Basel) (2013)

The proportion of participants that were more likely, less likely and equally likely to respond to a sign displaying specified time periods (a) inside and (b) outside the specified time period. N = 134.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4494358&req=5

animals-03-01142-f002: The proportion of participants that were more likely, less likely and equally likely to respond to a sign displaying specified time periods (a) inside and (b) outside the specified time period. N = 134.
Mentions: The presence of season and time indicators on wildlife warning signs altered the likelihood that participants would react to signs inside and outside the specified periods. During the specified time period, 56.0% of participants were more likely, 38.8% were equally likely, and 5.2% were less likely to respond appropriately (χ2 = 53.567, df = 2, p = 2.334 × 10−12, Figure 2a). Outside the specified time period, 49.3% of participants were less likely, 46.3% were equally likely, and 4.5% were more likely to respond appropriately (χ2 = 50.388, df = 2, p = 1.144 × 10−11, Figure 2b). The addition of a count of the number of animals killed by vehicles over the previous year (or other time period) significantly increased the likelihood that participants would react to the wildlife warning sign (72.4% more likely to respond, χ2 = 102.731, df = 2, p = 2.2 × 10−16, Figure 3).

Bottom Line: Evidence of the effectiveness of currently used signs is rare and often indicates minimal change in driver behaviour.Three currently used sign designs and five alternative sign designs were compared in the survey.Three signs consistently ranked high.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Environmental Futures Centre, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia. a.bond@griffith.edu.au.

ABSTRACT
Wildlife warning signs are the most commonly used and widespread form of road impact mitigation, aimed at reducing the incidence of wildlife-vehicle collisions. Evidence of the effectiveness of currently used signs is rare and often indicates minimal change in driver behaviour. Improving the design of these signs to increase the likelihood of appropriate driver response has the potential to reduce the incidence of wildlife-vehicle collisions. This study aimed to examine and assess the opinions of drivers on wildlife warning sign designs through a public opinion survey. Three currently used sign designs and five alternative sign designs were compared in the survey. A total of 134 drivers were surveyed. The presence of temporal specifications and an updated count of road-killed animals on wildlife warning signs were assessed, as well as the position of the sign. Drivers' responses to the eight signs were scaled separately at three speed limits and participants indicated the sign to which they were most likely to respond. Three signs consistently ranked high. The messages conveyed by these signs and their prominent features were explored. Animal-activated and vehicle speed-activated signs were ranked very highly by participants. Extensive field trials of various sign designs are needed to further this research into optimizing wildlife warning sign designs.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus