If wildlife conservation is the goal, target species for mitigation are selected on the basis of the potential impact of the road and traffic on species viability, e.g., determined through population modelling. This can include #P505-15 in vivo randurls[1|1|,|CHEM1|]# species with protected status as well as species of general conservation concern. Such species selection is generally directed by conservation legislation or environmental policies. We distinguish two potential targets in road mitigation goals: (1) no net loss, and (2) limited

net loss. No net loss implies that road impacts will be entirely mitigated, i.e., the post-mitigation situation for the targeted species and goals is identical to the pre-road construction situation. Limited net loss implies that a limited road impact will be accepted (van der Grift et al. 2009a). The target level should be decided in advance and will depend on the local situation. For example, in one jurisdiction

https://www.selleckchem.com/products/JNJ-26481585.html a species may be common and its survival not significantly harmed by a small loss in cross-road movements, whereas somewhere else it may be essential to its survival, justifying a no net loss target. In case a limited net loss target level is selected, it should be carefully

determined how much loss, relative to pre-road conditions, is acceptable. If this appears hard to pin-point, precautionary principles should be followed, i.e., no net loss should be selected as target level. Currently, road mitigation studies rarely specify mitigation goals (see van Selleckchem Depsipeptide der Ree et al. 2007). When goals are made explicit they are often too imprecise to allow for an evaluation of whether indeed they have been achieved, e.g., “allowing animal movement”, “restoring connectivity” and/or “promoting gene flow”. Effective evaluation of road mitigation measures requires a clear definition of success. We recommend the SMART-approach to develop goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-framed (Doran 1981; examples in Table 1). The goals should ideally: specify what road impact(s) is/are addressed; quantify the reduction in road impact(s) aimed for; be agreed upon by all stakeholders; match available resources; and specify the time-span over which the reductions in road impact(s) have to be achieved. Well-described mitigation goals will channel the choices in the next steps towards an effective monitoring plan (Fig. 1).