Abstract
Data on road-killed animals is essential for assessing the impact of roads on biodiversity. In most European countries data on road-killed huntable wildlife exists, but data on other vertebrate species (e.g. amphibians, reptiles, small mammals) is scarce. Therefore, we conducted a citizen science project on road-killed vertebrates as a useful supplement to data on huntable wildlife collected by public authorities. The dataset contains 15198 reports with 17163 individual road-killed vertebrates collected by 912 participants. The reports were made in 44 countries, but the majority of data was reported in Austria. We implemented a data validation routine which led to three quality levels. Reports in quality level 1 are published via GBIF, reports in quality level 2 via Zenodo and reports in quality level 3 were deleted. The dataset is relevant for the scientific community studying impacts of roads on fauna as well as for those who are responsible for road planning and implementing mitigation measures.
Measurement(s) | vertebrate roadkills |
Technology Type(s) | online forms and apps for android and iOS |
Sample Characteristic - Organism | Vertebrate |
Similar content being viewed by others
Background & Summary
Biodiversity is declining globally. This process is seen as a global crisis which, in combination with climate change, is expected to lead to dramatic changes in our ecosystems1. The global road network is increasing, leading to a vast environmental impact on biodiversity2,3, ranging from indirect impacts such as light pollution or air pollution to more direct impacts such as habitat fragmentation and habitat loss4. Roadkill is one of the most direct negative impacts of road traffic on vertebrate species5. However, data on road-killed animals on a large scale is scarce, especially regarding non-huntable wildlife. In Austria, for example, only data on road-killed huntable wildlife is gathered on a regular basis by hunters and summarised by the federal institute on statistics, Statistics Austria6. Besides nature conservation, data on road-killed animals are also important for traffic safety. In general, vertebrates on roads pose a significant risk for drivers. Large vertebrates (e.g. Red deer, Wild boar) can cause accidents by direct collisions and smaller vertebrates can lead to evasive manoeuvres by drivers7,8,9,10.
To supplement official data on huntable wildlife killed on roads with data on non-huntable wildlife, we launched the citizen science project ‘Roadkill’ in 2014 (https://roadkill.at/en). The project allows registered users to report so-called presence-only data on road-killed animals during their daily routine (e.g. commuting, cycling, hiking) with an online-form, or apps for iOS and Android devices. The reports are visualised immediately in the interactive map on the project website and in the apps, which provide feedback to the citizen scientists and contributes to raise awareness for the problem of road-killed animals, through understanding that their reported animal is not an isolated incident, but part of a larger picture.
Our dataset contains information on various vertebrate species. It thus can provide important information for planning mitigation measures, as ecological factors influencing the number of roadkills depend on the species studied11,12,13. So far, four peer-reviewed articles were published based on the dataset. In 2016 we compared reports on road-killed European hares from our citizen science project with data collected by hunters. Our results indicated that hunters tend to report data mainly from their hunting areas, whereas citizens report data during their daily routine on the way to/from work. It was concluded that a citizen science approach is an important source for roadkill data when used in addition to official data with the aim of obtaining a more complete overview of road-kill events14. In 2017 hotspot analyses of amphibians and reptiles in Eastern Austria revealed significant clustering of road-killed amphibians and reptiles, which is important information for authorities aiming to mitigate roadkills15. In 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdowns, we investigated if the observed decrease in roadkill reports was grounded in less animals being killed by traffic, or in citizen scientists staying at home and thus reporting less road-killed animals. The survey results suggest that a majority of the respondents have reported less roadkills during the lockdown, regardless if they changed their travelling routine or not. The survey results combined with the general decrease in road traffic, suggested that fewer animals were killed during the lockdown16. To predict amphibian migration events in spring, we compared the migration of common toads (Bufo bufo) and common frogs (Rana temporaria) with the phenology of five tree, one shrub, and one herb species. The results showed a close association between common frog migration and the phenological phases of European larch (Larix decidua, Mill.), goat willow (Salix caprea, L.) and apricot (Prunus armeniaca, L.). Thus, plant phenology seems to be useful to determine the onset of temporary protection measures for certain amphibian species to prevent roadkills17.
Following Project Splatter (United Kingdom) and the Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network18,19, we too published the dataset via GBIF and Zenodo. To the best of our knowledge, our dataset is the first dedicated exclusively to road-killed animals in continental Europe which is openly available.
The dataset is useful for global impact studies of road-killed animals on biodiversity as well as for local public authorities, which investigate potentially dangerous road segments. Additionally, the dataset in GBIF is used for studies outside the field of road ecology and thus this project also contributes to biodiversity research20.
Methods
Data collection
The dataset presented was collected via a citizen science approach. We chose citizen science to collect data on road-killed animals, since it is the most effective method to collect data on a large scale, and also because it’s widely accepted in the scientific community21,22,23,24,25,26. Although no generally accepted international definition of citizen science exists27,28,29, we define citizen science as the active involvement of people in scientific projects without project-specific professional and scientific background30,31. In our project citizens were mainly involved in data collection. Citizen scientists collected data on road-killed animals during their daily routine using smartphone apps for Android and iOS devices, or the online form on the project’s website.
We launched the citizen science project Roadkill in 2014 to investigate which vertebrate species are killed on which locations on Austrian roads32. The technical system and used software of data collection changed over time, but the main fields of enquiry (e.g. picture, organism, coordinates, date, number of individuals) in the submission form stayed the same (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1).
A detailed description of the data collection systems can be found in14,15,32. Since 2015 we use smartphone apps and online forms developed by Spotteron GmbH | Citizen Science platform (https://www.spotteron.net/) in German and English for data collection. Interested people are able to join the project by registering on the project website (https://roadkill.at/en/) or directly in the SPOTTERON Roadkill app for Android or iOS systems (https://roadkill.at/en/home-en). After successful registration, participants can report data via the submission form on the website or in the app. Data submission without registration or login is not possible. Each report entered in the database appears immediately on an interactive map on the project’s website.
Data Records
The presented dataset has been released via GBIF (https://www.gbif.org)33 and Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/)34 and it contains 15198 reports with 17163 individual road-killed animals collected by 912 participants from February 2014 - December 2020. With one report several individuals can be reported at the same time, therefore the number of reports is less than individual roadkills. When participants in Project Roadkill are grouped by number of reported roadkills, a typical picture of crowdsourcing projects can be seen35 (Fig. 2). The majority of citizen scientists report single roadkills and few citizen scientists collect large amounts of data.
Data collection from 2014–2020 resulted in data on road-killed animals from 44 countries. However, the focus of data collection was in Austria (Fig. 3).
Protected species
To provide an overview of how many of the reported individuals are endangered species, we grouped all data - where the animal could be identified to species level - according to the IUCN Red List classification36. 466 individuals belong to species which are listed between the status “Near Threatened (NT)” and “Critically Endangered (CR)”, 8629 individuals belong to species listed in the status “Least Concern” (Table 1). Overall 4048 individuals belong to species where the status is stated as decreasing, meaning that the numbers of individuals of this species are globally declining.
Dataset availability
The dataset containing data with quality level 1 can be accessed and downloaded via GBIF33. The dataset containing data with quality level 2 can be accessed and downloaded via Zenodo34.
Preferred Identifier: DOI
Technical Validation
Routine data validation
As soon as a citizen scientist reports a roadkill, it is visible on the project website. The reports can be filtered by species, a time series and a so-called heatmap can be created where reports are clustered spatially. These features are used by citizen scientists to check the data and comment on reports if they find conspicuities. These conspicuities are either corrected by the citizen scientist who reported the roadkill or is taken care of by the project team. Every second day, the data entered into the Roadkill project is validated to correct false or conspicuous entries via the backend of the website. If the report cannot be corrected, it is deleted. Correction of data was done (i) by the project team itself if errors were obvious (e.g., animal in submitted image does not match species identification listed) or (ii) by the participants themselves after being advised by the project team that a correction was needed (e.g., roadkill is not on a road).
To ensure the quality of the data, we used a stepwise selection process that allowed us to classify the submitted data into three quality levels at the end of this process (Fig. 4):
-
Quality level 1: Data sets with correct animal identification (either the dataset was reported by an expert or animal in submitted image matches species identification listed) and inconspicuous data.
-
Quality level 2: Data sets with inconspicuous data but no possible validation of the animal.
-
Deleted: records with conspicuous data and no possible validation of the animal.
This routine has the advantages that it can be carried out quickly in practice, is comprehensible and can therefore be used by several people in the team. Difficulties have arisen with the photos, as the quality of the photos does not always allow an exact identification of the animals (photo is blurred, animal is too far away, animal is too destroyed). If the photo does not allow validation, the report was treated the same as a report without a photo. Reports without photos were only counted as quality level 1 if they came from experts known to us with expertise in the reported animal group. Experts can be, for example, ecologists/zoologists or members of nature conservation organisations.
Of the total 15819 reports, 8347 reports (52.77%) were quality level 1 and published on GBIF, 6851 reports (43.31%) were quality level 2 and published on Zenodo and 621 reports (3.92%) were deleted. The main reasons for deleting a report were (1) the report was positioned offroad in our map, (2) the report was no roadkill, but a species killed by another reason (e.g. a bird that flew against a window pane next to a parking lot) or (3) we did not receive any feedback on a question about an inconspicuous report. Wherever possible, we corrected reports with obvious implausibilities (2663 reports, 17.52%). Most of the corrections were needed due to errors in locations (1550 reports, 10.2%), meaning the location of the report on our map was slightly beside the road. We corrected the location only in cases where no misinterpretation of the location was possible, e.g. a report between two roads was deleted, but a report a few metres next to a road was moved to the road. Some animals stray from the road after being hit, but we ask our participants to enter the report where the animal was hit on the road. For example, if the animal is found in a field next to a road, the report will still be on the road. If participants submitted a report with an uncertain species identification and we could verify the species identification, we changed the status of the report to “certain” (843 reports, 5.55%). We corrected species identification in 626 reports (4.12%). In 359 reports (2.36%) we corrected a combination of the above-mentioned aspects.
Additional manipulation of the dataset
The drop-down menu in the project’s online form and app contains Austrian vertebrate species only. If citizen scientists find an animal not listed, they have to select e.g. “other mammal” and type in the species name manually. Therefore, we changed reports containing “other” vertebrate species to a more detailed identification if possible. We changed all reports from New Zealand identified as “possum” to Common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and all reports from North America identified as “possum” to Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Since all “porcupines” were reported from North America, we changed these entries to North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum).
Code availability
For data collection we used the commercial software SPOTTERON by the company SPOTTERON GmbH (https://www.spotteron.com). The code for this software is not open source.
References
IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5657041 (2019).
Laurance, W. F. et al. A global strategy for road building. Nature 513, 229–232 (2014).
Ibisch, P. L. et al. A global map of roadless areas and their conservation status. Science 354, 1423–1427 (2016).
Forman, R. T. T., Sperling, D. & Bissonette, J. A. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. (Island Pr, 2003).
van der Ree, R., Smith, D. J. & Grilo, C. Handbook of Road Ecology. (John Wiley & Sons, 2015).
Laender. Hunting Statistics. Game casualties 2017/2018: furred game (red deer, roe deer, chamois, moufflon) https://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistics/Economy/agriculture_and_forestry/livestock_animal_production/hunting/index.html (2018).
Steiner, W., Leisch, F. & Hacklander, K. A review on the temporal pattern of deer-vehicle accidents: Impact of seasonal, diurnal and lunar effects in cervids. Accident; analysis and prevention 66, (2014).
Kioko, J. et al. Driver knowledge and attitudes on animal vehicle collisions in Northern Tanzania. TROPICAL CONSERVATION SCIENCE 8, 352–366 (2015).
Bíl, M., Andrášik, R. & Janoška, Z. Identification of hazardous road locations of traffic accidents by means of kernel density estimation and cluster significance evaluation. Accident Analysis & Prevention 55, 265–273 (2013).
Page, Y. A statistical model to compare road mortality in OECD countries. Accident Analysis and Prevention 33, 371–385 (2001).
Teixeira, F. Z. et al. Are Road-kill Hotspots Coincident among Different Vertebrate Groups? Oecologia Australis 17, 36–47 (2017).
Canova, L. & Balestrieri, A. Long-term monitoring by roadkill counts of mammal populations living in intensively cultivated landscapes. Biodivers Conserv https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1638-3 (2018).
Brehme, C. S., Hathaway, S. A. & Fisher, R. N. An objective road risk assessment method for multiple species: ranking 166 reptiles and amphibians in California. Landscape Ecol 33, 911–935 (2018).
Heigl, F. et al. Comparing Road-Kill Datasets from Hunters and Citizen Scientists in a Landscape Context. Remote Sensing 8, (2016).
Heigl, F., Horvath, K., Laaha, G. & Zaller, J. G. Amphibian and reptile road-kills on tertiary roads in relation to landscape structure: using a citizen science approach with open-access land cover data. BMC Ecol 17, 24 (2017).
Dörler, D. & Heigl, F. A decrease in reports on road-killed animals based on citizen science during COVID-19 lockdown. PeerJ 9, e12464 (2021).
Peer, M. et al. Predicting spring migration of two European amphibian species with plant phenology using citizen science data. Sci Rep 11, 21611 (2021).
Schwartz, A. L. W. UK Roadkill Records. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility https://doi.org/10.15468/r3xakd (2018).
Lin, T. The Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network Data Set. Version 1.3. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility https://doi.org/10.15468/cidkqi (2018).
Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biological Conservation 213, 280–294 (2017).
Périquet, S., Roxburgh, L., le Roux, A. & Collinson, W. J. Testing the Value of Citizen Science for Roadkill Studies: A Case Study from South Africa. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, (2018).
Abra, F. D., Huijser, M. P., Pereira, C. S. & Ferraz, K. M. P. M. B. How reliable are your data? Verifying species identification of road-killed mammals recorded by road maintenance personnel in São Paulo State, Brazil. Biological Conservation 225, 42–52 (2018).
Bíl, M., Kubeček, J., Sedoník, J. & Andrášik, R. Srazenazver.cz: A system for evidence of animal-vehicle collisions along transportation networks. Biological Conservation 213, 167–174 (2017). Part A.
Vercayie, D. & Herremans, M. Citizen science and smartphones take roadkill monitoring to the next level. Nature Conservation 11, 29–40 (2015).
Waetjen, D. P. & Shilling, F. M. Large Extent Volunteer Roadkill and Wildlife Observation Systems as Sources of Reliable Data. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, (2017).
Shilling, F. M., Perkins, S. E. & Collinson, W. Wildlife/Roadkill Observation and Reporting Systems. in Handbook of Road Ecology 492–501 (John Wiley & Sons, 2015).
Eitzel, M. V. et al. Citizen Science Terminology Matters: Exploring Key Terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2, 1–20 (2017).
Haklay, M. et al. Contours of citizen science: a vignette study. Royal Society Open Science 8, 202108 (2021).
Heigl, F., Kieslinger, B., Paul, K. T., Uhlik, J. & Dörler, D. Opinion: Toward an international definition of citizen science. PNAS 116, 8089–8092 (2019).
Heigl, F. et al. Quality Criteria for Citizen Science Projects on Österreich forscht | Version 1.1. Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/48J27 (2018).
Heigl, F. et al. Co-Creating and Implementing Quality Criteria for Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 5, 23 (2020).
Heigl, F. & Zaller, J. G. Using a Citizen Science Approach in Higher Education: a Case Study reporting Roadkills in Austria. Human Computation 1, (2014).
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna. Roadkill, The Global Biodiversity Information Facility, https://doi.org/10.15468/ejb47y (2021).
Heigl, F. & Roadkill Community. Roadkill Dataset 2014-2020 Quality level 2, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5878813 (2022).
August, T. A. et al. Citizen meets social science: predicting volunteer involvement in a global freshwater monitoring experiment. Freshwater Science 38, 321–331 (2019).
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021-3. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species https://www.iucnredlist.org/en (2021).
Acknowledgements
We thank all the Citizen Scientists who reported the data and helped identify the species. Without the many volunteer efforts of the Citizen Scientists, the publication of the dataset would not be possible. Special thanks go to Maria Peer and Patrick Diem, who performed a large part of the data validation. Additionally, we would like to thank Philipp Hummer and his team from SPOTTERON GmbH (https://www.spotteron.net/) for his great support and Johann Zaller for mentoring and making the project possible.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
F.H. and D.D. wrote the manuscript with support of N.T., S.R. and S.S. F.H. and D.D. led the data validation, N.T., S.R., S.S. and S.St. have helped enormously with specific groups of animals such as small mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Heigl, F., Teufelbauer, N., Resch, S. et al. A dataset of road-killed vertebrates collected via citizen science from 2014–2020. Sci Data 9, 504 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01599-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01599-6