Roo当天:评估ShuRoo预防大型足部车辆碰撞的效果

Q2 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Australian Zoologist Pub Date : 2021-10-29 DOI:10.7882/az.2021.042
H. Bender, G. Coulson
{"title":"Roo当天:评估ShuRoo预防大型足部车辆碰撞的效果","authors":"H. Bender, G. Coulson","doi":"10.7882/az.2021.042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Collisions between vehicles and macropods pose problems for road safety, animal welfare and wildlife conservation in Australia. We tested the ShuRoo, which is marketed specifically to deter kangaroos from approaching vehicles. We recruited 18 fleet operators with vehicles travelling consistent routes over long distances in rural areas: 59 vehicles fitted with ShuRoos and 40 vehicles without ShuRooss to act as controls. Drivers kept a log of collisions with macropods over an average distance travelled of 46,131 km. The overall mean rate of collisions with macropods was 1.16 per 100,000 km, with no significant difference between vehicles with a ShuRoo (1.32 ± 0.51) versus those without the device (0.68 ± 0.39). Drivers have the capacity to change their behaviour as a coping strategy to the presence of wildlife on the road, but risk a rebound effect if they believe the ShuRoo manufacturer’s claims and do not modify their driving behaviour to match the context. Rather than retro-fitting an ill-conceived device like the ShuRoo, an integrated, inter-disciplinary approach is needed to resolve the pervasive problem of macropod-vehicle collisions.","PeriodicalId":35849,"journal":{"name":"Australian Zoologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Roo the day: evaluating the ShuRoo for prevention of macropod-vehicle collisions\",\"authors\":\"H. Bender, G. Coulson\",\"doi\":\"10.7882/az.2021.042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Collisions between vehicles and macropods pose problems for road safety, animal welfare and wildlife conservation in Australia. We tested the ShuRoo, which is marketed specifically to deter kangaroos from approaching vehicles. We recruited 18 fleet operators with vehicles travelling consistent routes over long distances in rural areas: 59 vehicles fitted with ShuRoos and 40 vehicles without ShuRooss to act as controls. Drivers kept a log of collisions with macropods over an average distance travelled of 46,131 km. The overall mean rate of collisions with macropods was 1.16 per 100,000 km, with no significant difference between vehicles with a ShuRoo (1.32 ± 0.51) versus those without the device (0.68 ± 0.39). Drivers have the capacity to change their behaviour as a coping strategy to the presence of wildlife on the road, but risk a rebound effect if they believe the ShuRoo manufacturer’s claims and do not modify their driving behaviour to match the context. Rather than retro-fitting an ill-conceived device like the ShuRoo, an integrated, inter-disciplinary approach is needed to resolve the pervasive problem of macropod-vehicle collisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Zoologist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Zoologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7882/az.2021.042\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Zoologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7882/az.2021.042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在澳大利亚,车辆与大型足类动物之间的碰撞给道路安全、动物福利和野生动物保护带来了问题。我们测试了ShuRoo,这是专门用于阻止袋鼠接近车辆的产品。我们招募了18个车队运营商,他们的车辆在农村地区长距离行驶一致的路线:59辆装有ShuRoos的车辆和40辆没有ShuRoos的车辆作为对照。司机们记录了与巨足动物碰撞的记录,平均行驶距离为46131公里。与macropod的总体平均碰撞率为每10万公里1.16次,安装ShuRoo的车辆(1.32±0.51)与未安装该装置的车辆(0.68±0.39)之间没有显著差异。司机有能力改变他们的行为,作为一种应对道路上野生动物存在的策略,但如果他们相信ShuRoo制造商的说法,而不改变他们的驾驶行为以适应环境,就有可能产生反弹效应。与其改装像ShuRoo这样设计拙劣的设备,还不如采用一种综合的、跨学科的方法来解决大足部车辆碰撞的普遍问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Roo the day: evaluating the ShuRoo for prevention of macropod-vehicle collisions
Collisions between vehicles and macropods pose problems for road safety, animal welfare and wildlife conservation in Australia. We tested the ShuRoo, which is marketed specifically to deter kangaroos from approaching vehicles. We recruited 18 fleet operators with vehicles travelling consistent routes over long distances in rural areas: 59 vehicles fitted with ShuRoos and 40 vehicles without ShuRooss to act as controls. Drivers kept a log of collisions with macropods over an average distance travelled of 46,131 km. The overall mean rate of collisions with macropods was 1.16 per 100,000 km, with no significant difference between vehicles with a ShuRoo (1.32 ± 0.51) versus those without the device (0.68 ± 0.39). Drivers have the capacity to change their behaviour as a coping strategy to the presence of wildlife on the road, but risk a rebound effect if they believe the ShuRoo manufacturer’s claims and do not modify their driving behaviour to match the context. Rather than retro-fitting an ill-conceived device like the ShuRoo, an integrated, inter-disciplinary approach is needed to resolve the pervasive problem of macropod-vehicle collisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Zoologist
Australian Zoologist Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Animal Science and Zoology
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: The Royal Zoological Society publishes a fully refereed scientific journal, Australian Zoologist, specialising in topics relevant to Australian zoology. The Australian Zoologist was first published by the Society in 1914, making it the oldest Australian journal specialising in zoological topics. The scope of the journal has increased substantially in the last 20 years, and it now attracts papers on a wide variety of zoological, ecological and environmentally related topics. The RZS also publishes, as books, and the outcome of forums, which are run annually by the Society.
期刊最新文献
Biodiverse cities or green light for biological invasions? Koala density, habitat, conservation, and response to logging in eucalyptus forest; a review and critical evaluation of call monitoring Home-range positions in a bird community from south-eastern Australia - questions and answers Rat lungworm, Cryptosporidium and other zoonotic pathogens of Rattus rattus and native wildlife on Sydney's Northern beaches 1 Million Turtles: empowering communities to save Australian freshwater turtles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1