Incorporating Road Crossing Data into Vehicle Collision Risk Models for Moose (Alces americanus) in Massachusetts, USA


Wildlife–vehicle collisions are a human safety issue and may negatively impact wildlife populations. Most wildlife–vehicle collision studies predict high-risk road segments using only collision data. However, these data lack biologically relevant information such as wildlife population densities and successful road-crossing locations. We overcome this shortcoming with a new method that combines successful road crossings with vehicle collision data, to identify road segments that have both high biological relevance and high risk. We used moose (Alces americanus) road-crossing locations from 20 moose collared with Global Positioning Systems as well as moose–vehicle collision (MVC) data in the state of Massachusetts, USA, to create multi-scale resource selection functions. We predicted the probability of moose road crossings and MVCs across the road network and combined these surfaces to identify road segments that met the dual criteria of having high biological relevance and high risk for MVCs. These road segments occurred mostly on larger roadways in natural areas and were surrounded by forests, wetlands, and a heterogenous mix of land cover types. We found MVCs resulted in the mortality of 3% of the moose population in Massachusetts annually. Although there have been only three human fatalities related to MVCs in Massachusetts since 2003, the human fatality rate was one of the highest reported in the literature. The rate of MVCs relative to the size of the moose population and the risk to human safety suggest a need for road mitigation measures, such as fencing, animal detection systems, and large mammal-crossing structures on roadways in Massachusetts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. Bartón K (2016) MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.15.6.

  2. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach., 2nd edn. Springer, New York, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clevenger AP, Ford AT (2010) Wildlife crossing structures, fencing, and other highway design considerations. In: Beckmann JP, Clevenger AP, Huijser MP, Hilty JA (eds) Safe passages: highways, wildlife, and habitat connectivity. Island Press, Washington, D.C., p 17–50

    Google Scholar 

  4. Danks ZD, Porter WF (2010) Temporal, spatial, and landscape habitat characteristics of moose-vehicle collisions in western Maine. J Wildl Manag 74:1229–1241

    Google Scholar 

  5. DeStefano S, Deblinger RD, Miller C (2005) Suburban wildlife: lessons, challenges, and opportunities. Urban Ecosyst 8:131–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dussault C, Poulin M, Courtois R, Ouellet J-P (2006) Temporal and spatial distribution of moose-vehcile accidents in the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve, Quebec, Canada. Wildl Biol 12:415–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fedy BC, Doherty KE, O’Donnell M, Beck JL, Bedrosian B, Gummer D, Holloran MJ, Johnson GD, Kaczor NW, Kirol CP, Mandich CA, Marshall D, McKee G, Olson C, Pratt AC, Swanson CC, Walker BL (2014) Habitat prioritization across large landscapes, multiple seasons, and novel areas: an example using greater sage-grous in Wyoming. Wildl Monogr 190:1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Garrett LC, Conway GA (1999) Characterstics of moose-vehicle collisions in Anchorage, Alaska, 1991–1995. J Saf Res 30:219–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gilleland E (2013) Two-dimensional kernel smoothing: using the R package smoothie. NCAR Technical Note, TN-502+STR, p 17

  10. Groot Bruinderink GWTA, Hazebroek E (1996) Ungulate traffic collisions in Europe. Conserv Biol 10:1059–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gunson KE, Clevenger AP, Ford AT, Bissonette JT, Hardy A (2009) A comparison of data sets varying in spatial accuracy used to predict the occurrence of wildlife-vehicle collisions. Environ Manag 44:268–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gunson KE, Mountrakis G, Quackenbush LJ (2011) Spatial wildlife-vehicle collision models: a review of current work and its application to transportation mitigation projects. J Environ Manag 92:1074–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gunther KA, Biel MJ, Robison HL Factors influencing the frequency of road-killed wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. In: Evink GL Garrett P, Zeigler D, Berry J (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98. Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, pp 32–40

  14. Hijmans RJ (2016) raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 2.5-8.

  15. Hirzel AH, Le Lay G, Helfer V, Randin C, Guisan A (2006) Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. Ecol Modell 199:142–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Huijser MP, Duffield JW, Clevenger AP, Ament RJ, McGowen PT (2009) Cost-benefit analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with large ungulates in North America; a decision support tool. Ecol Soc 14:15,

  17. Huijser MP, Fairbank ER, Camel-Means W, Graham J, Watson V, Basting P, Becker D (2016) Effectiveness of short sections of wildlife fencing and crossing structures along highways in reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions and providing safe crossing opportunities for large mammals. Biol Conserv 197:61–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huijser MP, McGowen PT (2010) Reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions. In: Beckmann JP, Clevenger AP, Huijser MP, Hilty JA (eds) Safe passages: highways, wildlife, and habitat connectivity. Island Press, Washington, D.C., p 51–74

    Google Scholar 

  19. Huijser MP, McGowen P, Clevenger AP, Ament R (2008) Wildlife-vehicle collision reduction study: best practices manual. Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University, Bozeman, USA,

  20. Jaeger JAG, Fahrig L (2004) Effects of road fencing on population persistence. Con Biol 18:1651–1657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson CJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH, McDonald TL, Boyce MS (2006) Resource selection functions based on use-availability data: theoretical motivations and evaluations methods. J Wildl Manag 70:347–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Joyce TL, Mahoney SP (2001) Spatial and temporal distributions of moose-vehicle collisions in Newfoundland. Wildl Soc Bull 29:281–291

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lavsund S, Sandegren F (1991) Moose-vehicle relations in Sweden: a review. Alces 27:118–126

    Google Scholar 

  24. Leblond M, Dussault C, Ouellet J-P, Poulin M, Courtois R, Fortin J (2007) Management of roadside salt pools to reduce moose-vehicle collisions. J Wildl Manag 71:2304–2310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1:255–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Litvaitis JA, Tash JP (2008) An approach toward understanding wildlife-vehicle collisions. Environ Manag 42:688–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical analysis and design for field studies, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mannering F (2009) An empirical analysis of driver perceptions of the relationship between speed limits and safety. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav 12:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (2013) MassDOT roads 1:5,000 road and rail centerlines.

  30. MassGIS (2005) Digital Elevation Model (1:5,000). Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

  31. McClure M, Ament R (2014) Where people and wildlife intersect: prioritizing mitigation of road impacts on wildlife connectivity. Center for Large Landscape Conservation report. Pp. 56.

  32. McGarigal K, Compton BW, Jackson SD, Plunkett E, Rolith K, Portante T, Ene E (2015) Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System (CAPS) Statewide Massachusetts Assessment. Landscape Ecology Program Department of Environmental Conservation University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (accessed 5 July 2017).

  33. McGarigal K, Wan HY, Zeller KA, Timm BC, Cushman SA (2016) Multi-scale habitat modeling: a review and outlook. Landsc Ecol 31:1161–1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mountrakis G, Gunson K (2009) Multi-scale spatiotemporal analyses of moose-vehicle collisions: a case study in northern Vermont. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 23:1389–1412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2016) Traffic safety facts: Driver electronic device use in 2015. U.S. Department of Transportation Research Note.

  36. Nielson RM, Sawyer H, McDonald TL (2013) BBMM: Brownian bridge movement model. R package version 3.0.

  37. Neumann W, Ericsson G, Dettki H, Bunnefeld N, Keuler NS, Helmers DP, Radeloff VC (2012) Difference in spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife road-crossings and wildlife-vehicle collisions. Biol Conserv 145:70–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

  39. Rytwinski T, Soanes K, Jaeger JAG, Fahrig L, Findlay CS, Houlahan J, van der Ree R, van der Grift EA (2016) How effective is road mitigation at reducing road-kill? A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11(11):e0166941

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Seiler A (2005) Predicting locations of moose-vehicle collisions in Sweden. J Appl Ecol 42:371–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Silverberg JK, Perkins PJ, Robertson RA (2002) Impacts of wildlife viewing on moose use of a roadside salt lick. Alces 38:205–211

    Google Scholar 

  42. Teixeira FZ, Kindel A, Hartz SM, Mitchell S, Fahrig L (2017) When road-kill hotspots do not indicate the best sites for road-kill mitigation. J Appl Ecol

  43. U. S. Census Bureau (2010) Census 2010. Resident Population Data: 530 Population Density.

  44. Wattles DW (2015) The effect of thermoregulation and roads on the movements and habitat selection of moose in Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA, Dissertation

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wattles DW, DeStefano S (2011) Status and management of moose in the northeastern United States. Alces 47:53–68

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wattles DW, DeStefano S (2013) Space use and movements of moose in Massachusetts: implications for conservation of large mammals in a fragmented environment. Alces 49:65–81

    Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program (W-35-R), the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and Safari Club International. We thank J. Finn, A. Ford, T.K. Fuller, T. Lama, T. Millette, and N. Rayl for input on approach and analyses. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine A. Zeller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeller, K.A., Wattles, D.W. & DeStefano, S. Incorporating Road Crossing Data into Vehicle Collision Risk Models for Moose (Alces americanus) in Massachusetts, USA. Environmental Management 62, 518–528 (2018).

Download citation


  • Alces americanus
  • Massachusetts
  • Moose
  • Road ecology
  • Road-kill
  • Wildlife–vehicle collisions