Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 231–237 | Cite as

The KDE+ software: a tool for effective identification and ranking of animal-vehicle collision hotspots along networks

  • Michal Bíl
  • Richard Andrášik
  • Tomáš Svoboda
  • Jiří Sedoník
Perspective

Abstract

Context

Objective identification of locations on transportation networks, where animal-vehicle collisions (AVC) occur more frequently than expected (hotspots), is an important step for the effective application of mitigation measures.

Objectives

We introduce the KDE+ software which is a programmed version of the KDE+ method for effective identification of traffic accident hotspots. The software can be used in order to analyze animal-vehicle collision data.

Methods

The KDE+ method is based on principles of Kernel Density Estimation (KDE). The symbol ‘+’ indicates that the method allows for the objective selection of significant clusters and for the ranking of the hotspots. It is also simultaneously applicable to an unlimited number of road segments.

Results

We applied the KDE+ method to the entire Czech road network. The hotspots were ranked according to their significance. The resulting hotspots represent a short overall road length which should require a more detailed assessment in the field. The 100 most important clusters of AVC represent, for example, only 19.7 km of the entire road network (37,469 km).

Conclusions

We present an objective method for hotspots identification which can be used for AVC data. This method is unique because it determines the significance level of hotspots in an objective way. The prioritization of hotspots allows a transportation manager to effectively allocate resources to a feasible number of identified hotspots. We describe the software, data preparation and present the KDE+ application to AVC data.

Keywords

Kernel density estimation Spatial analysis Animal-vehicle collisions Roadkill Roads Network Hotspots GIS The Czech Republic 

References

  1. Adams LW, Geis AD (1983) Effects of roads on small mammals. J Appl Ecol 20:403–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Ghamdi AS, AlGadhi SA (2004) Warning signs as countermeasures to camel–vehicle collisions in Saudi Arabia. Accid Anal Prev 36(2):749–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaudry F, deMaynadier PG, Hunter JRML (2008) Identifying road mortality threat at multiple spatial scales for semi-aquatic turtles. Biol Conserv 141:2550–2563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett VJ, Sparks DW, Zollner PA (2013) Modeling the indirect effects of road networks on the foraging activities of bats. Landscape Ecol 28:979–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bíl M, Andrášik R, Janoška Z (2013) Identification of hazardous road locations of traffic accidents by means of kernel density estimation and cluster significance evaluation. Accid Anal Prev 55:265–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Carbaugh B, Vaughan JP, Bellis ED, Graves HB (1975) Distribution and activity of white-tailed deer along an interstate highway. J Wildlife Manag 39:570–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chung K, Jang K, Madanat S, Washington S (2011) Proactive detection of high collision concentration locations on highways. Transp Res A Pol 45:927–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conn JM, Annest JL, Dellinger A (2004) Nonfatal motor-vehicle animal crash-related injuries—United States, 2001–2002. J Saf Res 35:571–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dussault C, Poulin M, Courtois R, Ouellet J-P (2006) Temporal and spatial distribution of moose-vehicle accidents in the Laurentides wildlife reserve, Quebec, Canada. Wildl Biol 12:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freudenberger L, Hobson PR, Rupic S, Pe’er G, Schluck M, Sauermann J, Kreft S, Selva N, Ibisch PL (2013) Spatial road disturbance index (SPROADI) for conservation planning: a novel landscape index, demonstrated for the State of Brandenburg. Germany Landscape Ecol 28:1353–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garrett LC, Conway GA (1999) Characteristics of Moose-vehicle Collisions in Anchorage, Alaska, 1991–1995. J Saf Res 30(4):219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gonser RA, Jensen RR, Wolf SE (2009) The spatial ecology of deer–vehicle collisions. Appl Geogr. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.11.005 Google Scholar
  13. Gunson KE, Teixeira FZ (2015) Identifying the patterns and processes of wildlife road interactions are important to inform road-wildlife mitigation planning. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C (eds) Handbook of Road Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, pp 101–110Google Scholar
  14. 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 92:1074–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haikonen H, Summala H (2001) Deer–vehicle crashes: extensive peak at 1 h after sunset. Am J Prev Med 21(3):209–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hauer E (1997) Observational before-after studies in road safety. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Lagos L, Picos J, Valero E (2012) Temporal pattern of wild ungulate-related traffic accidents in northwest Spain. Eur J Wildl Res 58:661–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langen TA, Gunson KE, Scheiner CA, Boulerice JT (2012) Road mortality in freshwater turtles: identifying causes of spatial patterns to optimize road planning and mitigation. Biodivers Conserv 21(12):3017–3034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lord D, Mannering F (2010) The Statistical Analysis of Crash-Frequency Data: a Review and Assessment of Methodological Alternatives. Transp Res A Pol 44(5):291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Niemi M, Nykänen A, Rita H, Vastaranta M, Väänänen VM (2014) Two spatial scales of moose-vehicle collisions. In: IENE 2014 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Programme and Abstracts. Seiler, A. (ed). 2014, Malmö, Sweden; publisher: IENE. p 74. Session ID: 3AGoogle Scholar
  21. Okabe A, Yamada I (2001) The K-function method on a network and its computational implementation. Geogr Anal 33(3):152–175Google Scholar
  22. Plug C, Xia J, Caulfield C (2011) Spatial and temporal visualization techniques for crash analysis. Accid Anal Prev 43:1937–1946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Poledník L, Poledníková K, Roche M, Hájková P, Toman A, Culková M, Hlaváč V, Beran V, Nová P, Marhoul P (2005) Záchranný program–program péče pro vydru říční (Lutra lutra) v České republice v letech 2006–2015. AOPK PrahaGoogle Scholar
  24. Pynn TP, Pynn BR (2004) Moose and other large animal wildlife vehicle collisions: implications for prevention and emergency care. J Emerg Nurs 30(6):542–547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rea RV, Johnson CJ, Emmons S (2014) Characterizing moose–vehicle collision hotspots in northern British Columbia. J Fish Wildlife Manag 5(1):46–58. doi:10.3996/062013-JFWM-042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rost GR, Bailey JA (1979) Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. J Wildl Manag 43:634–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rowden P, Steinhardt D, Sheehan M (2008) Road crashes involving animals in Australia. Accid Anal Prev 40:1865–1871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Seiler A, Helldin J-O, Seiler C (2004) Road mortality in Swedish mammals: results of a drivers’ questionnaire. Wildl Biol 10:225–233Google Scholar
  29. Slater FM (2002) An assessment of wildlife road casualties – the potential discrepancy between numbers counted and numbers killed. Web Ecology 3:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spellerberg IF (1988) Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global Ecol Biogeogr Lett 7:317–333Google Scholar
  31. Teixeira FZ, Coelho AVP, Esperandio IB, Kindel A (2013) Vertebrate road mortality estimates: effects of sampling methods and carcass removal. Biol Conserv 157:317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Větrovcová J, Poledníková K, Poledník L, Beran V, Hlaváč V (2010) Databáze údajů o uhynulých jedincích vydry říční v ČR. Ochrana přírody 4:15–19Google Scholar
  33. Williams AF, Wells JK (2005) Characteristics of vehicle–animal crashes in which vehicle occupants are killed. Traffic Injury Prevention 6(1):56–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Xie Z, Yan J (2008) Kernel density estimation of traffic accidents in a network space. Comput Environ Urban 32:396–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yamada I, Thill JC (2004) Comparison of planar and network K-functions in traffic accident analysis. J Transp Geogr 12:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CDV Transport Research CentreBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations