Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Endangered and vulnerable mammals at risk of becoming roadkill

31 March 2025 | Story Andre Damons | Photo Andre Damons

Prof Aliza le Roux, Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences and Professor in the Department of Zoology and Entomology, at the Southern African Mountain Conference (SAMC2025).

Animals in mountainous areas around the world, in particular endangered, vulnerable, and near threatened mammals, are at risk of becoming roadkill as road networks expand further into these previously inaccessible terrains.

These mammals, which fall into the category of conservation risk according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) definitions, include African wild dogs (endangered), lions and leopards (both vulnerable), elephants (endangered), and honey badgers (NT – near threatened). Among the road-killed birds found in these areas are the hooded vulture (critically endangered) and the endangered steppe eagle.

This is according to Prof Aliza le Roux, Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences and Professor in the Department of Zoology and Entomology, who presented research during a session at the Southern African Mountain Conference (SAMC2025). Prof Le Roux, a behavioural ecologist studying how animals respond to risks and opportunities in the environment, did an oral presentation titled Patterns of wildlife-vehicle collision in montane environments during a session on Mountain biodiversity: animals.

The conference, under the patronage of UNESCO and organised by the University of the Free State (UFS) Afromontane Research Unit (ARU) – in partnership with the African Mountain Research Foundation (AMRF) and the Global Mountain Safeguard Research Programme (GLOMOS) – brought together researchers, policy makers, and practitioners from across Southern Africa and beyond. It delved into critical issues around mountain ecosystems, communities, governance, and transboundary cooperation.

For the research, Prof Le Roux, Dr Katlego Mashiane, Lecturer in the UFS Department of Geography, and Dr Clara Grilo from the BIOPOLIS project in Portugal, looked for published data/papers from 1971 to 2024, finding that most of the published literature on roadkill in Africa came from the 21st Century.

Heightens risks to wildlife

According to her, they found that amphibians were killed at the highest rate in the mountainous regions, while mammals were killed most frequently in the low-lying regions. Mammalian species classified as near threatened or more vulnerable to extinction on the IUCN Red List were most frequently found in the high-elevation mountains (7,7% of species killed in these areas), but also in low-lying areas (3,8% of mammalian roadkill). About 3% of the birds killed at moderate elevations were also of conservation concern.

“Increased vehicular traffic and better-paved roads in montane environments heighten the risks to wildlife inhabiting these regions, including the potential for more wildlife-vehicle collisions, leading to higher mortality rates. In terms of sheer numbers, many more small species (less than 1 kg in adult weight) are killed than larger species. This is probably because we either don’t see them or don’t care if we hit them. But we do care if our cars collide with something large like an eland – it does damage to us as well as them.”

“Unpredictable weather patterns and sudden topographical changes all contribute to these roads potentially being more hazardous for both drivers and any surrounding wildlife: the ruggedness of these terrains and tortuosity of roads can make it harder for drivers and wild animals to detect one another on mountain roads, increasing the likelihood of collisions,” writes Prof Le Roux and her colleagues.

The researchers estimated the roadkill rates for each observed species and then analysed the correlation with topographic aspects of the study sites. They used the 90m digital elevation model downloaded from the geospatial cloud-computing platform Google Earth Engine and classified ‘high’ elevation mountains as regions lying above 2 000 metres above sea level (masl), ‘moderate’ elevation mountains as lying between 1 500 and 2 000 masl, and ‘low’ regions as areas below 1 500 masl.

Limited data

Prof Le Roux and Dr Mashiane also extracted slope and the topographic ruggedness index. Roadkill rates were estimated for 15 different amphibian species, 98 reptilian, 261 avian, and 273 mammalian species, comprising 5 549 individual road kills.

“These findings indicate that roads in mountainous African regions pose a high risk to our indigenous wildlife. The accidents in mountainous areas are something to be aware of, as we are moving further into mountains where there is often vulnerable and unique biodiversity. When we do kill vertebrates through a collision, it is often a species that we would not find in low-lying areas.”

Unfortunately, Prof Le Roux says, they cannot say what the continental patterns are because so little data is available about biodiversity and roadkill patterns in the central and western parts of the continent. The data they found came from only 10 countries, and almost none of the studies took the form of systematic, longitudinal monitoring. The data sets were all ‘snapshots’ of roadkill in specific areas.

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered

2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply. What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations. You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?)

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept