2019-03-12 P&E Agenda - Item 5 - Attachment 2 - Koala Infrastructure & Feasibility Report

is inconsistent and most often, sign effectiveness has not been evaluated (Ahmed Al-Kaisy 2006). Some
examples include:

•    Bruinderink and Hazebroek (1996) reviewed European, North-American and Japanese literature on
     ungulate traffic collisions to better understand the threat posed by collisions to biodiversity and road
     safety. They found that a driver's response to game-crossing signs is insufficient to affect the crossings
     to-kill ratio. For example, stuffed mule deer placed in the road easement failed to evoke reaction from a
     high proportion of drivers in the U.S. and Aberg (1981) found only about 40% of the drivers noticed game-
     crossing signs.
•    The Koala Speed Zone Trial on the Koala Coast in south-east Queensland assessed the effect of
     differential speed signs on the number of koalas hit by vehicles from 1995 to 1999 (Dique et al. 2003).
     The study found no significant reduction in vehicle speed during the trial period from August to
     December.
•    Burbridge et al. (2010) assessed the deployment of 16 vehicle activated speed signs deployed at 11 sites
     in Queensland. There was a shift downwards in average speed, 85th percentile speed and frequency of
     speed non-compliance on approach to the sign sites, indicating a learned change in driver behaviour in
     response to the presence of the sign at a given location. A further downward shift in speed was observed
     downstream of the signs where tubes were installed, suggesting that the activating signs do influence
     driver behaviour. Most speed reductions occurred within a month after activation but this reduction
     remained stable within the following months - signs active for 12 months still showed the same reduction
     as yielded shortly after activation.
•    The trial of vehicle activated signs as part of the DTMR Koala Retrofit Works Program had mixed results
     with newly installed signs being effective for a period after installation, with decreasing effect as further
     time passed (Gawne 2017).

Design considerations
Improving the design of wildlife warning signs to increase the likelihood of driver response may aid in
reducing the incidence of wildlife–vehicle collisions (Bond & Jones 2013).

•    Research to refine a sign design with the best likelihood of response is required. The addition of sign
     elements such as seasonal and distance specifications, road-kill counts and other features deemed
     important to eliciting a response by drivers to wildlife warning signs should be investigated and field
     tested (Bond & Jones 2013).
•    Driver habituation to wildlife warning signs may be greater in urban and peri-urban areas where people
     repeatedly use the same roads than along highways or more remote areas. Use of a variety of sign
     designs, both spatially and temporally, may be valuable, however, research into this possible effect is
     needed (Bond & Jones 2013).

3.3.            Other considerations
Wildlife-crossing structures should be designed to allow safe passage for animals, promote habitat
connectivity, be accessible and encourage natural movements (Glista et al. 2009). The design of effective
wildlife-crossing structures requires accommodation of high priority species while maintaining an economic
and structurally sound building plan. Glista et al. (2009) provide some general recommendations regarding
wildlife collision reduction:

•    Pre-construction planning is generally more economical than retrofitting existing roads and potentially
     could be considered during environmental impact assessments.
•    Connectivity of habitat and permeability of road systems are important factors.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report                                                            Page 15

Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860