Install barrier fencing along railways

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

80%
Certainty

30%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Collisions with trains can cause substantial numbers of mammal deaths (e.g. Gundersen & Andreassen 1998). Barrier fencing alongside railways may reduce access to railway tracks by mammals and, thus, reduce the number of mammal-train collisions.

Gundersen H. & Andreassen H.P. (1998) The risk of moose Alces alces collision: A predictive logistic model for moose-train accidents. Wildlife Biology, 4, 103–110.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along railways. This study was in Norway.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Norway found that fencing eliminated moose collisions with trains, except at the fence end.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A before-and-after study in 1985–2003 in forest in southern Norway (Andreassen et al. 2005) found that 1 km of fencing eliminated moose Alces alces collisions with trains along that stretch. The exception was one killed at the fence end. Within the wider study area, there were 0.58 moose/km killed each winter during the study period. In 1995, a 1-km-long wire-mesh fence was erected alongside a railway line. Moose-train collisions along a 100-km stretch of the railway line were recorded from July 1985–April 2003.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Andreassen H.P., Gundersen H. & Storaas T. (2005) The effect of scent-marking, forest clearing, and supplemental feeding on moose-train collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69, 1125-1132.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Install wildlife warning reflectors along roads Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	15	Synopsis Link
Use chemical repellents along roads or railways Action Link	Unlikely to be beneficial	5	Synopsis Link
Provide food/salt lick to divert mammals from roads or railways Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link