This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Whichever is done, please include or add an article on "Quiet pavement technologies". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byenzer (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rubberized asphalt is clearly part of that subject. I've added a link to "see also", though perhaps there would be a better place for that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this belongs in the Environmental impacts of roads article, possibly in a discussion of recycled materials in road construction, like asphalt roof shingles, ground glass, blast furnace slag, fly ash, silica fume, asphalt millings and crushed concrete. --Triskele Jim 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles clearly overlap. I'm agnostic as to which one should remain. One could make a case for retaining both, with Environmental impact being a general article, and this one concentrating specifically on the effects on flora, fauna and ecological systems. Still, I though a conversation needed to be started.--Triskele Jim 01:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current scope of both articles overlaps, but rather than a merge I wonder if a rescope of this article is possible, sort of (but not quite) as you suggest; the title suggests to me to be about the particular ecology (ecologies) associated with roads and roadsides - less about the impacts which roads have on existing environments, and more about the systems which develop around their particular habitats (e.g. reptiles basking on hot road surfaces, kestrels using roadside verges as hunting grounds, plants with fluffy or sticky seeds using roads as vectors for colonisation, particular communities of species developing on road cuttings through bedrock etc.). If such a thing is considered sufficiently notable, and if such a scope is not impractically broad, it could be a very interesting article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the original instigator of this article (who hadn't found the other article), I'd be okay with a merger, but would prefer to see this article expand along the lines that PaleCloudedWhite suggests. I made the article after going to a seminar with this title, a seminar that was about a new multi-organisation project to mitigate the effect of roads on wildlife, and I see that seminar as a sign that this is a growing area of effort. The ecological theory has quite recently reached a level of real effectiveness, and money is becoming available for this sort of work, and I expect that the topic will grow. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More than 3 years since the last discussion here, and Road ecology still mostly consists of empty sections. Given this, it seems better to go with the merge proposal and have one good articles that covers the range of topics. If that pages develops, then a subsequent split could be made. Klbrain (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant as a joke? When you are diverting pollution to another area, you are not remedying anything. You are simply polluting some other area. Whoever wrote this must have been under the impression that this article is in dear need of a positive twist, no matter how. -- Kku (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the headings separating the 'positive' and 'negative' effects on air quality, as really all the examples provided lead to more air pollution, just in different areas. I tried to highlight this difference but if someone has a better way to word it please do.
I also added an additional source as well as some clarifying information. 199.5.150.66 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
